To the Editors of The Crimson:

In your report of Saturday April 6 on the Encampment for Divestiture, you misquoted Jamin B. Raskin '83, IL. You quoted Jamie as saying, "[President Bok] has decided that the dialogue is over and that's in keeping with his character." Jamie did not say that. What he did say was that "[President Bok] has decided that the dialogue is over, and that's in keeping with the character of his position."

The Encampment played the serious but friendly game of "difficult but not impossible entry" with Vice-President Daniel Steiner. We learned not to be afraid with each other we weren't going to bite his leg, but he was still going to have to touch our heads gently as he tried to walk a tightrope through our seated bodies. The wild thing about this was that Dean Epps, Dean Fox, and Vice President Steiner were amused, tolerant, and indulgent, They came and listended while President Bok stayed away. We don't know which of them are actually on our side at this point, but if they keep on listening it's only a matter of time. Even paternalism has a way of working itself out, and every night runs until day catches up.

Why is president Bok afraid? Precisely because he is a man of good will, who wants to be sincere. His casuistical, self congratulatory position on South Africa is something that he hates because he knows its moral flimsiness. He despises the racism which he finds himself standing with. He sees that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the city of Boston, U. Mass., Smith, and Hampshire colleges have all comfortably divested. Bok is stuck, afraid to step outside and see the tragedy he is building himself into.

But we should never forget that Bok was the hero who brought coffee and doughnuts to his law students in 1969, while [then-president] Pusey was calling in the state troopers to break the heads of his students. The instinct active in the Bok of 1969 will steer him away from sustaining apartheid, and back to himself. Bok was not an opportunist in 1969. His response was not just astute, it was fresh and genuine and it made him the only possible choice for president. Let Bok end his term as president as honorably as he began its he still has that chance.

We in the divestment movement have definitely been guilty of ad hominem attacks in the past because of our impulse to break down the door which Bok has locked. We are learning, however. We only hope that Bok can join us in this important movement towards self education. Michael T. Anderson '83-'84, II   Richard H. Drayton '86

The Crimson stands by the article as printed.