Bok's decision to establish a $1 million anti-apartheid fund with Harvard money similarly defies his strictures about the appropriate uses of University resources. As described in the open letter, this fund would support a wide array of endeavors, including lobbying for federal sanctions against South Africa, "contributing money to the defense of South Africans whose human rights have been violated," and sending Harvard students to South Africa to provide legal, medical, and educational services.

THE ADMIRABLE CHARACTER of these proposals makes them no less irreconcilable with Bok's stated beliefs. Consider some of the president's past proclamations:

"Universities cannot exert economic leverage to affect disputes beyond the campus without inviting outside pressure to influence academic policies (April 6, 1979)."

"Even if all the preceding [arguments for divestment] could be accepted, it would still be hard to justify the use of Harvard's resources to overcome apartheid [emphasis added]. After all, the Corporation has a legal and moral responsibility to administer Harvard's resources to further the normal academic purposes of the University and not to support causes or combat injustices for which we are not directly responsible.... It would clearly be an abuse of trust to contribute a significant amount of Harvard's funds for the benefit of other endeavors to combat suffering and oppression, such as human rights organizations and hunger action groups (April 6, 1979)."

"The line is crossed when a university goes beyond expressing opinions and tries to exert economic pressure by divesting stock or engaging in a boycott in order to press its views on outside organizations (Oct. 1, 1984)."

Last week, President Bok quietly but irrevocably crossed the line--the party line, the intricate and legalistic public relations line that has upheld his position for more than a decade. For better or for worse, the University can no longer credibly invoke the gospel according to Bok in defense of the status quo.