Today, tomorrow and Wednesday the Student Assembly will distribute questionnaires asking student opinion on a number of campus issues. The articles on this page examine four of those issues. Should Harvard University take whatever steps are necessary to change the name of the Engelhard Library?

Yes

The following article was written by the Southern Africa Solidarity Committee.

Charles Engelhard was the leading American financial patron of the apartheid regime for over two decades and the record of his dealings in South Africa is well documented. among others, one can point to The New York Times, March 24, 1969, Dec. 24, 1969, The Star (Johannesburg), September 1970. Charles Engelhard parlayed an inheritance of $20 million into a $250 million fortune through his control of 15 per cent of the South African gold mining industry. South African gold miners earn on an average less than half the official South African poverty wage level and an average of three miners die per shift.

In the aftermath of the 1960 Sharpeville massacre, in which South African police murdered 67 unarmed blacks, Engelhard organized the American bank loans which salvaged the South African economy. He personally owned 23 South African corporations (see Africa Today and Forbes). Engelhard served as an administrator of the migrant labor system which brutally separates black families. He was the only foreigner ever top sit on the boards of the Witwatersrand Native Labor Association and the Native Recruiting Agency, two government agencies which recruit cheap African labor to work in the mines (see Ruth First, The South African Connection).

Engelhard consistently defended the essential structure of apartheid. At the inauguration of the new Prime Minister John Vorster in 1967, Engelhard proudly proclaimed, "The policy of South Africa as expressed by the new Prime Minister is as much in the interests of South Africa as anything I can think of or suggest" (see First, also Secheba, February 1969). Despite Engelhard's hollow words about his concern for the "dignity of man" and "improved skills and living conditions," his mines were just as brutal and inhumane as any other South African mine. Actions speak louder than words. Never by word or by deed did Engelhard condemn the migrant labor system which he enforced and from which he profited. He never once demanded an end to political repression. He never once called for black majority rule. Whatever his connections with liberal America, innocence by association cannot exonerate him. He may have contributed money to the NAACP, but the NAACP did not feel obligated to name a building after him.

Should the University honor such a man by dedicating a library of public affairs to him? Dean Allison,k when pressed by the Kennedy School Black Students Caucus, admitted that there is in fact no contract requiring the naming of the library after Engelhard. If so, why not change the name? Must we seek funds from the honor every wealthy donor, no matter how immoral their source of wealth? Should we dedicate a library to a profiteer of slave labor? Are there simply no limits to such expediency? Should not the Harvard Corporation take heed of the words of its own ACSR: "There are times when considerations of good citizenship supercede economic considerations."

Throughout the controversy the administration has callously ignored the single most important party in this issue--those silenced by repression and premature death, those South African gold miners from whom Engelhard extracted his fortune. In the early 1970s students at Princeton forced their administration to honor alumnus Charles Engelhard. We must nor permit Engelhard's wealth to legitimize exploitation is South Africa. Honor should not be sold to the highest bidder. Vote yes on Question one.

No

David M. Gullick '80, who wrote this article, works at the Engelhard Library.

Note the word "whatever" in the question above. Its inclusion means that a "yes" vote endorses steps even if they are immoral or illegal. This ambiguous approach also reveals that the Assembly was unable to cite specific practical steps.

The Assembly knows that the Engelhard Foundation obviously would not have turned over $1 million without first having insisted on recognition and a legal contract. Harvard would be breaking that legal contract by renaming the Engelhard Library. Even if there was only a moral contract and even if the donation was returned, the Engelhard Foundation could still sue Harvard because 1) the Foundation has been without the use of its money for some time and 2) Harvard allowed Charles Engelhard's name to be smeared at a public dedication.

The Engelhard Foundation may have remained quiet during the current controversy because it knows that Harvard's acceptance easily outweighs a student protest in the public eye. But it would be a different story if Harvard itself turned against Charles Engelhard. The foundation would be left with no alternative except to clear its name by suing Harvard; and it's difficult to imagine a court in which Harvard would not lose.

An Engelhard Foundation victory in court could not only leave the library's name unchanged while giving Charles Engelhard a judicial stamp of approval; it could also lead to the awarding of damages, thus forcing a cash flow in the opposite direction. Would students want a portion of their tuition going to the Engelhard Foundation?

There are other question that need to be asked. Why isn't the financing of all Harvard libraries and buildings subject to scrutiny? Did the endowment which subsidizes a Harvard education ever receive money from a New England slave trader or an anti-semite? Will the fear of being attacked scare off potential contributors? Should Harvard require a loyalty oath or purity pledge from students and professors as well as donors? If so, would you pass? Would your parents and grandparents pass? The father of Sophie Engelhard (KSG '77) was publicly branded as another Adolf Hitler--could your father be next?