To the Editors of The Crimson:

Charles Engelhard backed up his anti-apartheid words with action. Richard Tofel '79 of The Harvard Independent (November 30, 1978, page 3) reports that Engelhard's intervention was directly responsible for obtaining the visa that enabled Robert Kennedy '48 to deliver his famous 1966 Capetown anti-apartheid speech.

Many Harvard students who object to the "honoring" of Charles Engelhard (a true honor does not require a donation) also want Harvard to sell immediately and totally any stock held in banks or companies that do business with South Africa. They also want the U.S. companies in South Africa to leave. There are questions that need to be asked about the possible consequences of these positions:

1) How much of Harvard's endowment would be lost and what would be left to invest in, if Harvard withdrew support from any of the 6,000 banks and companies doing business with South Africa?

2) Are students willing to accept the inevitable tuition increases and scholarship decreases that total divestiture would bring?

3) If the 350 U.S. companies physically in South Africa were to decide to withdraw universally, what would prevent them from being nationalized by the South African government?

4) Do we want to negate the progress occurring in South Africa? Robert Lenzner of The Boston Globe (Dec. 2, 1978, page 14) reports that a study done by the Arthur D. Little consulting company of Cambridge shows that 75 percent of the 81 corporations who signed equal employment pledges this year have ended discrimination. Mr. Lenzner added that medical and insurance benefits for blacks have improved, to the point of equality in most cases. The Christian Science Monitor (Dec. 4, 1978, page 32) said in an editorial that South Africa's new minister for black affairs, Pieter Koornhof, has made "no less than stirring promises." The Monitor reported that, "Mr. Koornhof said that plans for demolition [of the Cape Town squatters' settlement, Crossroads] have been set aside while means are sought to provide homes for the settlers."

The tragic plight of the blacks in South Africa is not relieved by sympathizers who refuse to acknowledge the consequences of what they do or propose and the oppressed don't need friends with the moral consistency of the Kennedy School students who advocate the renaming of their library even if the Engelhard Foundation's money is not returned. If not reminded, they don't object to sharing in the fruits of alleged exploitation.

Harvard administrators might consider submitting resolutions of their own. A few suggestions:

Resolved: Standards applied to South Africa will be applied at least as severely to the 64 nations, 29 of them in Africa, that allow their people even less freedom (see U.S. News and World Report, Dec. 4, 1978, pages 32-33).

Resolved: Students will investigate the sources of their own income and return every penny of loans, grants, or scholarships made possible by any of the 6,000 banks and companies doing business with South Africa.

Resolved: Pending an exhaustive investigation of the private sources that currently subsidize two-thirds of a Harvard education, tuition will be tripled to a conscience-free $13.350 a year.

Resolved: Students who argue that a company's opportunity to work within a system for change is overshadowed by its association with that system, will cease to criticize Harvard policy and immediately and totally withdraw from school, so as not to dignify an allegedly immoral university with their presence. --David M. Gullick '80