Fomenting discontent among Blacks is only useful if we believe that inciting a civil war is a legitimate goal. Blacks already hate the regime; they simply have no legitimate, non-violent outlet to express their opposition.

Hence, my disillusionment with divestment activists who call for harsh sanctions and, in the same breath, lament the violence that rips South Africa today. They are part and parcel of the same thing.

THE Southern Africa Solidarity Committee insists that Harvard should divest because anti-apartheid South Africans want us to. Indeed, many prominent Black South Africans (including Harvard Overseer Archbishop Desmond M. Tutu) favor sanctions. No one really knows whether a majority of Blacks agree; public opinion surveys have produced conflicting results and are confounded by the fact that it is illegal in South Africa to advocate sanctions.

How, then, should Harvard students decide?

If we wouldn't object to a civil war and the violent overthrow of the apartheid regime (and hey, it may not be such a bad idea), we should press for the total isolation and destruction of the South African economy. But then again, isn't the point of sanctions to resolve conflicts without resorting to military force? If we want a military solution, an outright invasion would doubtless be simpler and more cost-effective than inducing our adversary's citizens to rise up in revolt.

If we want a symbolic statement of opposition, we should choose symbols that do not entail costs to us, as divestment surely would.

But if Harvard students sincerely want a peaceful transition to majority rule in South Africa, we should support American economic involvement only insofar as it provides maximum empowerment and economic benefits to Blacks and minimum economic benefits to the apartheid state.

In other words, we should vote for selective divestment.

John L. Larew '91 is Editorial Chair of The Crimson. He used to attend divestment rallies.