To the Editors of The Crimson:

There is a certain set of guidelines that good journalists adhere to. They know that, before writing, they will have had to gather a specific amount of information in order to avoid blatant inaccuracies. It is highly unfortunate that in his most recent editorial ("Divestiture Follies," 5/10/84), Peter J. Howe should have forgotten these time-honored recommendations.

First, let us take a look at Mr. Howe's description of the Encampment For Divestiture. He charges that the latter was an "all-night party." He also alleges that President Bok was "confronted by a mob" the next morning as he came to work. The Encampment was not a party. Its purpose was to publicize the issue of divestment, to protest the University's intransigence and lack of constructive proposals to put an end to a system of institutionalized racism, and to promote a meaningful exchange of views between the community and the Corporation. In characterizing the 15 or so people who felt strongly enough about the issue to sleep out in the cold as a beer-swilling mob is not only inaccurate reporting, but shows plainly that, for Mr. Howe, bias is more important than evidence. Mr. Howe, to my knowledge, was not at the scene of the Encampment and neither was his presence noted the next morning. Even an editorialist should get his facts straight.

The real problem with Mr. Howe's approach, however, is that he is very willing to "brand the divestiture movement as one that doesn't deserve consideration" because of its "shrill posturing." Although Mr. Howe charges that most of the divestment proponents' arguments are ad hominem, his own arguments aren't exactly free of that bias either. If Mr. Howe were really concerned about the issue, he would find out more about the arguments for and against divestment (both of which have been made quite public). Instead, he attacks the people who are in favor of divestment, letting all the relevant issues fall by the wayside. Because a tiny minority of persons have attacked President Bok personally, Mr. Howe is perfectly willing to cast doubts on the arguments for divestment. Nothing could be more childish.

There is one more comment of Mr. Howe's which at best must have come from a slip of the pen. He says that President Bok "has made sure that Harvard doesn't invest in companies which don't sign the Sullivan Principles." This is simply false. Robert Neer, a colleague of Mr. Howe's, rightly pointed out in a Crimson article on divestsiture (5/8/84) that "Harvard holds... stock in eight companies that have not signed the Sullivan Principles or are not fully abiding by them." This is public knowledge and has been amply documented. The Corporation itself says that it is presently engaging in "intensive dialogue" with three of these companies, in the apparent hope that their labor practices will improve. This furnishes proof that Mr. Howe does not seem to read his own publication.

Finally, I hope that Mr. Howe's pontificating attitude will not inhibit people from finding out about the pertinent issues and discussing them openly. That the Sullivan Principles and increased investment in companies that operate in South Africa only serve to strengthen apartheid should be made clear. No, Mr. Howe, I personally am not satisfied with the meagre three pages that President Bok devotes to the issue in his last book and with the few constructive suggestions he has made in his open letters. And before you make any more unfounded and destructive allegations. I suggest that you think before you write. Samuel C. Rickless '86