Back in April when the Senior Class Committee voted unanimously to send out a letter publicizing the newly-created Stephen Biko Memorial Fund, there was great hope that the Fund would succeed in bringing attention to an issue of vital concern to Harvard seniors and would directly assist the victims of South Africa's apartheid system. Though no one at the time viewed the Fund in and of itself as an adequate response to the challenge put forward by the Harvard Corporation's investment policy, everyone agreed that it would be a step in the right direction.

As the main sponsor of the Fund, I had hoped that the Fund would not only accomplish the two goals listed above, but would have a diversionary effect on contributions made to the larger Harvard Gift Fund in the long-run. When paired with a possible boycott of the remainder of the Fund. Harvard students could use a carrot-and-stick strategy in dealing with the Corporation and its investment policy. If the Harvard Corporation continued its investment policy with firms with subsidiaries in South Africa, seniors and alumni could support the Biko Fund and boycott the remainder of the Gift Fund. If the Harvard Corporation adopted a more socially and morally responsible investment policy, then seniors and alumni could support both the Biko Fund and the remainder of the Harvard Gift Fund. In either case, seniors and alumni could do something in both the short-run and long-run to aid South African blacks.

This strategy was based upon an assumption that international students were treated substantially differently in the financial aid process than were American students and that a special fund for South African black students would fill a financial vacuum for these students. Recently however, after reviewing the functioning of the Fund. I discovered that the Fund would not actually fill a vacuum. Indeed, because the College's equal access policy covers foreign as well as American students, the Biko Fund money would actually serve as a substitute for money already forthcoming from the College financial aid office. From this realization, it followed that the Biko Fund would not have a diversionary effect on funds donated to the Harvard Gift Fund. In fact, unless it reached levels of phenomenal proportions it would merely free up other money within the Harvard Gift Fund pool.

What this meant in the long-run was that the carrot-and-stick approach would be taken away from Harvard students if they supported the Biko Fund. Moreover, the Fund might be then used to detract from the real target of student concern on the South Africa issue: the Corporation's investment policy. Weighing this result against the very limited symbolic significance of the Biko Fund, it became clear that the political costs of keeping the Fund would far outweigh its benefits.

After much thought and agony. I am as of this day withdrawing all support for the Stephen Biko Memorial Fund. For I believe that any tactic which substantially damages the chances of accomplishing the long-term goal should not be supported. Since the Biko Fund takes from students the financial lever--perhaps the only one left after failed marches, failed petitions, and failed discussion--it should not be supported. Support for such a Fund should come only after the Harvard Corporation has adopted an investment policy which clearly supports the withdrawal from South Africa of all American corporations in which it owns stock. Until that time, I would urge all seniors to totally boycott both the Harvard Gift and Capital fundraising drives, and send letters to the President and Fellows encouraging them to adopt a socially responsible investment policy.

It has become clear in the last two years that student and faculty opinions on South African investments are not taken very seriously. Unfortunately, the Corporation seems to listen only to the ring of the cash register. Therefore, a financial boycott and mailing campaign seem to be the only options left to those in the Harvard community who care about the University's corporate investment policy and its effects on human rights in South Africa.

I have often wondered what the Harvard Corporation would have done in the late 1930's-early 1940's if it had owned stock in American corporations with subsidiaries in Nazi Germany. Would it have adopted an investment policy similar to the one it now owns up to in South Africa and offered three or four scholarships to German-Jewish students to come to Harvard? That is a question that perhaps no one can answer with great certainty, but the present South Africa stockholding policy casts a dark fearful shadow over the answer.

Let me add this, though: I care greatly for this University. It has in the last four years greatly broadened the intellectual horizons of many, including myself. It has furthermore, helped us all to grow as individuals, making the challenges of the future less foreboding. However, I refuse to believe that the continuing fulfillment of its mission must come at the expenses of the support of oppression and injustice in South Africa. It may take some financial prodding, but the University must be given a moral pinch or else it will continue to help prolong the tragic nightmare in South Africa. For this reason, I urge fellow classmates to support a financial boycott and a mailing campaign to the Corporation until an investment policy which clearly opposes the American corporate presence in South Africa is adopted. Michael R. Eastman '79   Fourth Marshal of the Harvard Class of 1979