Continued from yesterday's Crimson

HARVARD'S IVY, Derek Bok's protestations notwithstanding, is not a form of insulation from the outside world. The University is loath to take action on situations that do not directly influence it, and such conservatism is probably justified in most cases--but not South Africa.

Bok argues that divestment would be inappropriate for a University. He states that institutions of higher learning should not try to impose their views of society, economics, or politics on the rest of the world. Divestment would threaten freedom of speech in the University, and further, it might lead to financial losses, thereby impairing the University's principal goals of educating young people and pursuing research.

This is the key to Bok's argument--an attempt to goldleaf our ivy.

Of course the University has already tried to press its views on others, acknowledging that the ivy does not blind it to the South Africa situation. First, it requires those companies which have ties to South Africa and are in the portfolio to sign the Sullivan principles. Then it insists that the companies comply with the principles; if they don't, Harvard sells the stock, as it did last week.

It has in this sense recognized the singularity of South Africa and Harvard's inability to ignore apartheid's uniqueness.

HOWEVER, HARVARD ALSO has insisted that the proper way to solve the problem is through mediation. Many other universities follow Harvard's lead on their investment policies. But given the recent moves of many states, cities and private groups to divest themselves of South Africa's taint, Harvard's omission acquires the status of a holding action, even a de facto affirmation of investment in South Africa, and not Bok's "appropriate" aloofness.

To Bok's credit, Harvard did indeed abandon some of its aloofness last week when it devoted $1 million to an anti-apartheid fund. This was a generous move, but it was also clearly a use of the University's money to make a moral statement. Students now are asking the University to up the ante and make the moral statement even more powerful.

Bok has stated that he does not believe Harvard should try to press its views on others. Perhaps it is the ultimate in Harvard arrogance to believe that it could "press" its view on any significant issue. The best it could do is "state" its view on the South African situation, and hope people listen, especially the Black South Africans. The question remains: Will the University whisper or shout? So far we have heard only a faint whimper.

There is something "inappropriate" about a University which stands for freedom of thought refusing to defend the blatantly opressed rights of a people kept in ignorance. There is something "inappropriate" about a University wrapping itself up in its ivy and refusing to recognize the context in which it operates.

Bok's argument that divestment would threaten freedom of speech in the University doesn't ring true. How could making a moral statment supporting the freedom of an oppressed people threaten freedom?

But perhaps Bok also forgets that "threatening freedom of speech" flips both ways. Refusing to divest, snapping back at Faculty members like Stanley Hoffmann, Dillon Professor of the Civilization of France, at Faculty meetings, and refusing to speak to students at an open forum also threaten freedom of speech. Bok has clearly told pro-divestment activists that he does not believe them, that in fact he thinks they are crazy reactionaries.

WHAT KIND of freedom of speech is Bok worried about? He is afraid that if we divest in an attempt to impose our will on giant and profitable companies like IBM, then those companies may attempt to impose their will on us.

Bok has rightly pointed out that if the University sells its stock other investors will buy it. We can safely assume that these large companies will not be quaking in their shoes when Harvard tries to impose its will on them. They may stop and think about the issue. They may even decide to pull out of South Africa. But Harvard could not claim to have coerced such action.

The University has a remarkable ability to ignore pressure. If it took students 15 years to get Harvard to do anything substantive on the South Africa issue, it will take IBM a long time to get Harvard to do anything. Exactly what is it that Bok is afraid IBM might try to impose on us? Move Harvard to upstate New York? This intangible, undemonstrated, unquantified threat from companies is a very shadowy, rice-paper-thin excuse for not divesting.