An Open Letter to President Bok:

Last spring, after your address to the Quincy House Senior Dinner, I wrote to you on the subject of South Africa. At the time I was an undergraduate, and you apparently did not see any need to respond. Perhaps now that I have joined "the society of educated men and women," not to mention that of alumni, my thoughts will be considered worthy of attention, or at least of acknowledgment.

In your address at Quincy House, you put forth the premise that there is room for reasonable debate regarding the relative benefit or detriment brought to the South African people by the presence of American corporations, and that careful, case-by-case scrutiny is therefore required, before a decision can be made regarding shareholder resolutions calling for corporate withdrawal. I contend that, on the contrary, there is a compelling case for the view that all American business in South Africa is, in and of itself, harmful to the fight against apartheid, and that Harvard should therefore support such resolutions in all corporations doing business in that country.

Although it is my personal view that the weight of the argument: lies decisively on the side of withdrawal, I acknowledge that there is room for disagreement regarding the potential benefits of progressive employment practices, the importance of American investment and technology to South Africa, the usefulness of a positive American example to other firms, and other points discussed in your report of last April. Of crucial importance, however, is an argument to which your report gives a passing allusion, but no refutation: the effect of American investments in South Africa on American foreign policy.

We cannot be surprised, surely, that the United States continually vetoes United Nations economic sanctions against South Africa, while many of America's largest corporations have a vested interest in the status quo, nor can we expect that policy to change until those companies have withdrawn. Yet one need only look at the case of Rhodesia to see the effectiveness of such sanctions. I do not mean to suggest that all is now well in Rhodesia, but since the imposition of economic sanctions, there has been progress towards majority rule that would have been unimaginable earlier. South Africa is a different case, of course--its domestic economy is much stronger, for one thing--but then, where Rhodesia had South Africa to support it, South Africa would have no one.

If there is another side to this argument, also, I should like to hear it. I said that in my last letter, too; if this one also goes unanswered, I shall know what to conclude. Roger G. Tobin '78