To the Editors of The Crimson:

Your April 16 article on Harvard's dialogues with companies doing business in South Africa incorrectly characterized the remarks I made to your reporter. I think a reader of the article would have been left with the impression that I thought the dialogue process was ineffective or flawed. I don't feel that way at all. I support the dialogue process, I think it has produced successes, that it is more intensive and extensive than it has ever been, and that it continues to evolve as the nature of our correspondance and the responses from the companies change.

In one area we've gone much further than the article gave us credit for. We have written to every company in the portfolio which does business in South Africa urging them to actively oppose influx control laws and inquiring about sales to the South African military and police, not simply to computer firms, as the article suggested.

The article suggested that it is difficult to differentiate between those companies which are reticent and those which do not live up to the University's ethical standards. It's certainly true that if a company won't talk to its shareholders it's harder to determine how it is operating. However, it's the exception when companies are not forthcoming. More importantly, though, the purpose and focus of the dialogue goes well beyond merely determining how our portfolio companies operate. We are primarily, through the dialogue process, trying to convince those companies which operate in less enlightened was to improve.

Neam I'm in no way discouraged about the dialogue process. I share your assessment though, that it is not an uncomplicated process. Alan Fein   Secretary to the Corporation Committee on   Shareholder Responsibility