To the Editors of The Crimson:

The Corporation seems to have based the whole weight of its decision concerning investment in South Africa on the Sullivan principles. Arguing that, since US corporations make up only 2 or 3 per cent of the South African GNP, it would be more effective to improve working conditions for non-whites employed by these corporations (.4 per cent of the non-white work force). Besides ignoring the fact that low wages and inhuman work conditions are only one small aspect of apartheid, this argument rests on a strange logic that rejects one strategy because it manipulates such a small wedge of the pie, then embraces another which involves a wedge that is even smaller by a factor of about six. But, they argue, American corporations "might" set a good example which national companies could follow. This is naively optimistic for several reasons.

First, the corporations will be trying to institute these changes amid a great deal of legal and popular resistance (unless it becomes an empty and token gesture). A white employee could go to court over the abridgement of his "right" to segregated facilities. Given the history of government actions, he'd be almost sure to win. How could a corporation give non-whites the right to strike in any effective form when it would be illegal for them to gather at once or hold a picket or demonstration? And even if corporations respected a strike, the government could deport the strikers to their Bantustans and quickly end the strike.

Second, the implementation of these principles will require only a couple of dollars a day. To achieve anything approaching a decent minimum wage could require increases as large as 500-1000 per cent in some industries. The early history of labor in our own country shows that companies are usually unwilling to offer even small wage increases when labor has no effective bargaining power, as is the case in South Africa today. Even if corporations have developed a little more consideration for morality since the era of the Robber Baron, would they willingly accept the burden of huge wage increases while their competitors still benefit from nearslave labor? If the Harvard corporation is not ready to assume financial losses for the sake of ethical considerations, how can we realistically expect other corporations with more at stake to do so?

All considered, the Sullivan principles might work in a liberal society which granted its citizens a minimum of civil rights. But South Africa is not such a society. Not only are non-whites denied almost all rights, many of these rights are denied to whites as well. The government can use fear of the "natives" to gain a mandate for repressive actions. For example, a friend's father--a white, South African lawyer--was convicted of treason and sentenced to 25 years. His crime: circulating a petition among white voters which asked for the liberalization of apartheid, and planning a peaceful rally consisting of liberal whites. Television was not allowed until 1975 because of its "unwholesome influence." It is now permitted to operate two hours per evening, once it has been fully edited by the Publications Control Board, which has jurisdiction over the entire media. Its purpose is to censor any material that "deals improperly" with any one of 45 subjects, including even mildly sexual material and government policy, as well as unacceptable opinions regarding the status of non-whites.

I have known about a dozen white South Africans in the last six years. Their opinions have ranged from total acceptance of apartheid to revolutionary rejection, but all agreed on one point--the present regime will never willingly abandon apartheid or any institution necessary for its maintenance. In the six years I have followed this issue, the South African government has, on many occasions, publicly insisted that it will never abandon apartheid. How can we expect to change, by good examples and token adjustments, a society that claims it will go down fighting rather than willingly institute change? In light of these considerations, I feel that the assumption underlying the Sullivan principles--that change can come through "the power of persuasion" and "good examples"--is akin to the argument that one could convince the Ku Klux Klan to support integration and civil rights if you just reasoned with them. Greg Stone '78

To the Editors of The Crimson:

What is the essence of leadership if not the willingness to rise above self-interest, expedient policies, and situational ethics? Simply put, based on the South Africa decision one could carve a university president out of a banana with more backbone than Derek Bok. That decision is couched in corporate double-think that makes impossible any clear interpretation of its deliberately complex guidelines on supporting shareholder resolutions. In addition, the gibberish that owning non-voting stock in banks that loan money to South Africa or its public corporations is less reprehensible than owning voting stock is both analytically and morally not up to this university's professed standards.

The nature of any "presidency" allows the occupant of the office to speak with courage and plan with vision and insight. As Andrew Jackson said of his job: "One man with courage makes a majority." Clearly, President Bok is not such a man. He has spoken with style but without substance; hence, his plan is one of stunning gutlessness. Clearly, students should not expect anything more from President Bok than competent administration in carrying out his more routine duties--he has abdicated any leadership role he could hope to have played on any issue of student concern. Students can only take comfort that we are members of the University and not of the Corporation.   Richard D. Bernstein '81

To the Editors of The Crimson:

Your series of articles on the recent demonstrations against Harvard's shareholdings in US corporations in South Africa was sensationalized. Ostensible news-stories rang with self-righteous indignation, and whatever your editorial stance, sensational journalism is inappropriate.

It is interesting to speculate about why this sensationalism occurred. Too young to have participated in the civil rights-antiwar protests, some present college students feel that they have somehow missed out, that gone are the days when college unrest meant rectitude and legitimacy in a wayward nation. This romanticized understanding of campus turbulence in the past influences attitudes toward today's events. To the demonstrations of last week The Crimson reacted with the glee of a spoiled child who has just been given his lollypop.

We join you in condemning racial oppression. But an issue of this magnitude does not need hyperbole in its coverage by media. The facts speak for themselves.   Michael A. Weiss '78

To the Editors of The Crimson:

I realize I should be grateful to the members of the Corporation for all the soul-searching and agonizing moral battles they so kindly tell us they have undergone, but some parts of their statement strain the limits of my credulousness. For example, they tell us that the best way to influence conditions in South Africa is not to "cut and run," but to redirect the policies of corporations. The logical extension of such an argument is that Harvard should buy even more South African stock so that more corporations come under the influence of men with such high moral and ethical purpose as the Corporation members profess to have. I don't accuse them of plagiarism, but the last time I read such self-serving hypocrisy on the subject was in a recent Times editorial authored by another gentleman famous for his compassion for the downtrodden, William F. Buckley.   Sankar Swaminathan '79