Part of the University's attempt to end-run around E4D lies in its ability not only simply to misrepresent E4D but also to manipulate--as can be seen in the experience of this year's Senior Class Committee.
Some members decided that E4D should be an alternative to the Class Gift--a check-off option printed on the official pledge cards. By only offering the Class Gift on the pledge card, many thought that they were "legislating a morality." They felt the decision instead should be left to the conscience of the individual senior.
After some discussion, though, the representative of the Harvard-Radcliffe Fund laid down the Law: Harvard University would not allow E4D to be printed on its pledge cards. E4D was disapproved of by President Bok, and the representatives said that the H-R Fund could not go against his policy.
The Class Gift, the members discovered, is in no way under the auspices of students, but of Holyoke Center. The Class Committee then wrote up a neutral informational letter, explaining to seniors that both E4D and the Class gift would be soliciting this spring. The original draft, however, called E4D a "gift, a technical term that university officials refused to print on official Harvard Senior Class Committee stationary (though they said the Class Committee could do so on stationary the Committee pays for itself). Although the word is not significant, the incident reveals the repeated misrepresentation of E4D by Harvard. Central to E4D's conception is that it is a gift to Harvard, and one more valuable than a mere financial contribution.
BOK'S OBJECTIONS to E4D are indeed interesting. He argues first that economic power is not an appropriate way to influence University decisions. Yet, one wonders, what is an "appropriate" means? Both has set up a committee, which does not include a single Black, to look into the ethical issues of Harvard investments, and advise the Corporation. Bok appoints the committee members himself, but does not always follow their advice. And when he says he will accept their decision, for example, about the meaningless Sullivan code-of-corporation behavior in South Africa, he lies and the University maintains investments in companies which fail to sign the Sullivan principles. Where is democracy--or even an "appropriate" means--in this situation.' For Bok to come out and define "appropriate" to be those methods which he has insured to be ineffective is manipulatory. Democracy instead resides in E4D, where students who have no vote in the Corporation are able to manifest their desire for a better Harvard in relatively small monetary terms.
Bok's other argument is that a contribution to the University must be positive--not a negative sanction of withholding money unless all one's conditions are met. Bok, and his administrators, simply fail to see that E4D is positive. The people who give to E4D are not Harvard-haters. Quite the opposite. They want the best Harvard possible, and they are saying--in the tradition of Thoreau--"I cannot in good conscience give money to an institution that has financial dealings with companies that profit from apartheid."
Well, says Harvard, we understand you may have some (misguided) understanding of the world which prevents you from contributing to Harvard--perhaps a simplistic application of a Moral Reasoning course. But look, you can make your contribution specifically to the "scholarship fund."
The problem here is that much of Harvard's money is tied together--at least within the budget of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, which helps finance financial aid. The more that students give to the scholarship funds, the less of the "general fund" Harvard has to divert there to meet that year's need. Practically, offering the "scholarship fund" is a meaningless ploy.
If all else fails, Harvard's last argument is that E4D and the Class Gift are not mutually exclusive: can't you just give a couple of dollars to Harvard, while giving most of it to E4D? Of course, this is the most telling line. Harvard does not really care about how much you give (except if you are designated a "special giver"). What Harvard cares about is that you give at least something to the class gift.
Many students probably agree with President Bok that the privilege of a Harvard education entails a responsibility to the Harvard community. But this responsibility must be shaped by values that are taught in the classrooms. While President Bok must necessarily be concerned about the volatile worth of Harvard's endowment, this should not be our prime concern.
The objections to E4D are largely obfuscations--E4D is indeed, effective, valid, and appropriate. Furthermore, E4D provokes University opposition because it is seen as a financial threat, which is also ultimately the reason behind the University's intransigence to divestiture. As Thoreau wrote, "Absolutely speaking, the more money, the less virtue...It puts to rest many questions which he would otherwise be taxed to answer...Thus his moral ground is taken from under his feet."