To the Editors of The Crimson:

Joe Kahn in his Sept. 25 editorial piecce attempts to defend President Bok and the Harvard Corporation's refusal to totally divest of South Africa-related stock, and to caricature the divestiture movement as self-righteous 'Bok-bashers.' It is striking that nowhere in four column feet of text is there any reference to South African conditions nor any mention of the expressed will of the oppressed majority. Kahn's ignorance of these can be the only reason for his myopic analysis.

To make money in South Africa today is not just to profit from the economic opportunities created by institutionalized racism, but perhaps worse, is to contribute to the continued vitality of a regime of state terror. The movement urging the disinvestment of American capital from South Africa, and divestment from corporations that continue to participate in the apartheid economy, was not initiated in the Adams pool, or after a Quincy bong-a-thon. All the legitimate voices of the South African liberation struggle: Nelson and Winnie Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Oliver Tambo of the African National Congress, Archbishop Huddlestone and Rev. Carstons of the International Defense and Aid Fund, Desmond Tutu, Allen Boesak of the United Democratic Front, and the brutally murdered Steve Biko, have repeatedly called for the total isolation and ostracism of South Africa.

What Bok and Kahn do not seem to realize is that there is a civil war in progress in South Africa. Continued investment in South Africa is an act of collaboration with the police brutality against children in Soweto and with starvation in the Homelands, without which there would be fewer frightened job-hungry people, and less chance to profit.

Divestment is not just a moral issue; it is a political one. It is a question of where Harvard will vest its power: its legitimizing power, its image, and its economic power. It must be answered not by elegant intentions or phrases, but by action. Divestment is a relatively painless thing. New York City actually made money doing it. Should Harvard, then, put its weight behind the political aspirations of the Black majority, or will it remain the discreet quisling of the Bok regime? To a growing number of students and staff at Harvard, the choice is clear. Richard H. Drayton '86