THE UNDERGRADUATE Council referendum asks what appear to be two very simple questions. The first question is, "Harvard University ought to divest completely from any institution that does business in the Republic of South Africa." The second is, "The Undergraduate Council shall support and encourage the majority view on the preceding proposition through appropriate means."

The answer to the first question should clearly be "yes." Harvard's divestment has become both important and necessary in the fight against apartheid. If students do not vote "yes" on the first part of the referendum, they will miss what could be a crucial opportunity to tell the Administration that the student body supports divestment.

But regardless of one's answer to the first part of the referendum, the only response to "Proposition Two" is to leave it blank. The second question of this seemingly simple referendum is a loaded one. Clouded by its nebulous wording and endowed with a dubious agenda of political double-meanings, the basic issue of the second question--whether or not the Council should take a stand on divestment--has been completely misframed.

With elections for Council officers coming up this weekend, some Council members are trying to manipulate the popular appeal of the issue of divestment to undermine the re-election bids of the present leadership. Members of a Council political faction, who are trying to unseat the incumbent Council officers, have said that they will use the results of the second part of the referendum as a vote of confidence in the Council's current leadership.

More important perhaps, students voting on the referendum will answer question two with clear reference only to the issue of apartheid raised by question one. Recent statements, however, indicate the Council will, in fact, interpret the response to question two as a general indication of whether or not the Council should ever, on any issue, not just divestment, take a political stand. Students may be hoodwinked into endorsing or rejecting a "political" Undergraduate Council without realizing it.

It is a mistake on the part of the Council to turn this referendum into a question of wholesale political activity by the Council; in fact, the referendum's framers are deceiving students by forcing them to vote for something they may not want. The second question is so entangled in political implications that it is impossible to completely understand how the Council may interpret student response. The conceivably simple question has taken on complex hidden agendas, leaving the student body with only one choice: to refuse to answer question two.

Dissenting Opinion

THE MAJORITY OPINION makes the alleged "politicization" of question two on the upcoming referendum within the Undergraduate Council grounds for relegating the referendum to the Harvard equivalent of a Gallup poll. This argument is at best an excuse for inaction and at worst hypocritical.

It is an act of obscene high-mindedness to limit actions against apartheid for fear of tainting an undergraduate legislative body with vulgar politicking. If there is a political faction that stands to benefit by a yes vote on question 2, this is as it should be. Why should anyone--particularly Harvard's decision makers--care about this "poll" if the Council itself ought not to act on it? Should student government poll students for their opinion only to deliberately ignore it?

Students should recognize what the majority is advocating: leaving question two blank is the tantamount to voting no. In order for the Council to represent the views of students, the second question needs 50 percent of the ballots cast. Not voting will tell the Council not to take a stand on divestment. By leaving the question blank one does not avoid taking a stand on whether the Undergraduate Council should address political issues. Question two may be subject to a variety of interpretations, but it can not be glibly avoided. The majority position would, indeed, "hoodwink" students into making a disastrous decision about the Council's role in the debate over divestment.