To the Editors of The Crimson:

What happens if, as appears will be the case, Harvard keeps its substantial investments in corporations doing business in South Africa?

Two assumptions are necessary. First, at some point in the future, the black majority will gain control of the South African government and of the societal infranstructure. There is nothing really radical or debatable about such a belief. Black South Africans, because of the strength of their numbers alone, already posses a major criterion necessary for control.

The second assumption is that the change from a white to a black dominated society will occur in a revolutionary fashion. Now, that assumption is subject to debate. Our natural desires and hopes as educated people who prefer to deal in concepts is that the inevitable change will be peaceful. Therefore, we think of innumerable plans, we look for any amount of improvement no matter how insignificant the number of individuals affected, to justify our hopes. Hence, we have the Sullivan principles. We also have Mr. Bok's letters. Both are premised on the hope that change will be peaceful. History, however, offers little support for such optimism.

Once this revolution begins, Harvard, as a stockholder, will have the opportunity to urge corporations to stay in South Africa, to work with the new elites and to aid in the revitalization of the nation's economy and of its people. Instead, if President Bok's admonishment to the community is still followed, the Corporation will again place profits above morality. If returns on investment diminish severely, the Corporation's response will probably be exactly that being urged upon today: it will divest, or vote for resolutions calling for withdrawal. The University community may suddenly find that the sale of $300 million in stock will not be as expensive as the cost of holding on to the shares. The Corporation will have no problem in depriving its investment managers of 400 corporations in which to invest. More moral, that is, more profitable investments will be found.

The irony in this scenario is overwhelming. Harvard, as an institution, will abdicate its moral responsibilities twice. Today, it has the opportunity to divest, to show the world that it does have a conscience, and that it will no longer live upon profits drawn from the very lives of an oppressed people. It has not taken that position. Tomorrow, once the return on investment is seriously interrupted, the Corporation could show that helping a people towards recovery is more important than monetary gain. Instead, if Mr. Bok's arguments are followed to their logical conclusion, the Corporation probably will with-draw its support from the companies in South Africa, the very support which today it says ensures the greatest probability of a peaceful end to apartheid.

In no way is this letter meant to support the University's position in opposition to divestiture. My intent is simply to show that Mr. Bok's arguments are untenable. Although, Mr. Bok "abhors" apartheid, he will never be able to logically justify leading the University in taking a stand against it. To do so, even when the system has been beaten down, will endanger what he conceives to be the holiest of holies, the "bottom line." In effect, morality, can and always will be displaced. That feeling is not only unacceptable; it is dangerous. Marvin N. Bagwell '76, Law '79   Proctor in the Yard