The name Nestle usually evokes sweet associations--chocolate bars, powdered flavorings for milk and instant soups. But the Nestle Corporation's role in the production and marketing of infant formulas in the Third World is less well known. Nor do many students realize the towels they use after sports practices or the sheets they collapse in at University Health Services are products of J.P. Stevens, a company repeatedly cited for unfair labor practices. These company practices--and the resulting charges of opportunism and exploitation--surfaced as major issues this year at Harvard.

Prompted by anger at these alleged corporate abuses, a group of students tried to persuade the University to boycott products produced by the Nestle Corporation and J.P. Stevens. The students argued that Harvard indirectly supported these practices by buying these companies' products. While boycott supporters stressed the need for the University to condemn these corporate practices, the administration hesitated, citing concern about the appropriateness of making such an ethical statement.

Supporters of the boycott point to a series of charges of unfair labor and marketing practices levelled against the two companies. Health officials' and journalists' reports say that Third World mothers, lured by advertising promising healthier babies, used the Nestle's infant formula instead of breast-feeding their children. Critics of Nestle charge that millions of babies die or grow up malnourished because the mothers dilute the formula--often with unsanitary water--making it harmful or, at the least, less nutritious.

J.P. Stevens products drew similar fire. That corporation has been cited for more than 100 labor law violations by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Stevens, the largest textile mill employing only non-union workers, has been charged with maintaining unsafe working conditions. Attempts to organize workers have failed repeatedly, and organizers have said the failures result because Stevens frightens and physically intimidates workers thinking about unionizing. Observers also have suggested that Stevens finds it cheaper to pay fines doled out for violations than to take the steps necessary to correct work situations cited as dangerous.

Because Harvard purchases of Stevens products are limited to a minimum number of goods, boycott organizers said the University could easily stop buying Stevens products.

But the University remained adamant about considering the boycott issue by way of traditional channels. House committee consideration and a subsequent Student Asembly call for a petition drive garnered thousands of signatures and broadened the boycott's base of support. But administrators told boycott organizers they would have to present their case before CHUL, since the Student Assembly was not yet officially recognized by the University.

A CHUL meeting on boycotts only confused the matter further, with students and administrators accusing one another of misrepresentation. Nevertheless, a student-faculty Ad Hoc Committee on Consumer Boycotts emerged form the meeting, headed by Archie C. Epps III, dean of students. The committee recommendation contains a four-point proposal: (1) the University should promptly identify products bought from a company or subsidiary of a company about which an organization is concerned; (2) the organization interested in a boycott should report its intentions to the appropriate Faculty committee (in the case of undergraduate boycotts, CHUL) and present to the committee both pro and con arguments concerning the boycott; (3) the University should cease purchase of the product, if a substantial number of students stop using that product--provided there are substitutes available at comparable costs.

Finally, the fourth point in the committee's recommendation stipulates that the organizers of the boycott must publicize the fact that the boycott in no way represents the official opinion of the University.

Most of the students involved with the boycotts say they are relatively satisfied with the substance of the report. Ross Boylan '81, an assembly member active on the issue, says, "There is a very asymetrical view of rights. All the rights belong to those who want to continue using the product, while few belong to those who want to boycott it."

But President Bok's recent open letter to the community on boycotts has left most people confused about the status of the report. In that letter, Bok wrote that the University should not try to dictate the policy of a corporation because such action could threaten the appearance of neutrality that a university has an obligation to maintain. It might scare off professors who feel the University is trying to advocate a certain view--a view that may be contradictory to their own beliefs, Bok said. He also warned that Harvard should not officially exercise its consumer leverage to control corporate policy unless it is willing to let corporations retaliate.

Bok made a crucial distinction between using proxy votes to influence corporations and using consumer boycotts. Owning, Bok says, implies responsibility, whereas buying does not. Bok does not try to set specific policies on boycotts in the letter, however, and his only reference to the ad hoc committee is his belief that its report contains problems. What problems, and how Bok will address them, remains unclear.