To the Editors of the Crimson:

If, of the students calling for divestiture of Harvard-owned stocks in companies doing business in South Africa, one were to ask, "What are you doing studying at a university with immoral investment policies?," one would probably response: "At the time I entered Harvard I was not aware of the moral compromises I would be making by studying at a university which indirectly condones apartheid. Now that I an here, however, I realize that the impact I can have on correcting the situation is greater than if I severed ties with the University altogether. Therefore, I have remained here to let my voice be heard. Meanwhile, I benefit from a Harvard ecucation."

Is this response really any different from the one university officials might make in defending their continued investment in companies whose policies they abhor, yet in whose policies they have a small voice, and from whose earnings the university benefits?

The difference between the protesting students and university policy makers is not one of words or of intent, but of action. The students have been true to their consciences in speaking out to the appropriate higher-ups. Can university policy makers claim to have used their voices to the fullest extent possible? David E. Keyes, G.S. 1,   Division of Applied Sciences