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.

Finally, Bok protests that divestiture would aim right at the heart of education. If Harvard divests it might lose money and be forced to cut back on education funds.

For a University with all the investment brainpower of Harvard to say that it could not over a period of a year profitably rearrange its portfolio is straining credibility. Students are not demanding that Harvard literally sell all of its stock in one fell swoop. Harvard can drag it out over a year or two if it wants to.

BOK'S FINAL ARGUMENT is that divestment is ineffective.

He proposes that if divestment did force American companies to leave South Africa, it would only create more Black unemployment and not change the Afrikaaner regime. There is a certain wisdom to this argument; it might be compelling were it not for the fact that "intensive dialogue" and the Sullivan principles have been outrageuosly ineffective. In addition, the amount of increased Black unemployment would probably be miniscule and tolerable compared to what divestment is aimed at eliminating.

An even greater weakness of divestment as an effective means of ending apartheid, Bok says, is stockholder replacement. He argues that if we sold our stock, it would naturally be bought by someone else, presumably less concerned over apartheid, and therefore contribute nothing to resolution of the problem. It's very generous of Bok to keep Harvard's hands dirty to spare other investors; perhaps Bok would like to send Libya some nuclear weapon blueprints to spare other Universities from providing the information to Quadaffy?

The only effective moral stand left for the University is to divest. Most Black South Africans call for divestment and one day we hope that the Black leaders of South Africa will remember that someone listened to them.

ONE FEAR BOK might have is that if divestment does not have the effect of persuading companies to pull out of South Africa, then Harvard would be making an absurd, extremist gesture calculated to purify ourselves but do nothing.

Of course, compared to Harvard's ineffective practical stand right now, moral effectiveness and purity might be a welcome change. It will cause people to stop, think and take the South Africa situation more seriously. As it is right now Harvard is engaged in its own absurd mini-diplomacy with companies concerning the Sullivan principles. And how seriously do congressmen take Bok when he lobbies for limited sanctions against South Africa while his University does the least it can about apartheid?

Derek Bok has shown himself to be as personally committed to finding a workable solution to South Africa's apartheid as most other people at this University. But now is the time for him to call for divestment.

The situation in South Africa has become clearer and clearer as the years have gone on. U.S. influence has diminished in the region, and Pretoria needs a very clear message that the U.S. is going to leave it behind unless some changes are forthcoming. Harvard can help send that message by giving up its obsolete stance and divesting.