Upon reviewing the ACSR’s research and recommendations, the Corporation Committee on Shareholder Responsibility (CCSR) rejected them, abstaining on the two resolutions.
The CCSR, a three-member subcommittee of the Corporation, justified its decisions by stating that the situation in South Africa had not changed significantly since the ACSR’s rejection of the Caterpillar resolution the previous year, and that the IBM resolution would prevent public service institutions like hospitals and schools from receiving important technology.
Hugh Calkins ’45, chairman of the CCSR from 1969 until 1986, told The Crimson in 1980 that “the sudden shift in the ACSR’s votes may saddle Harvard with a reputation of inconsistency in the corporate world.”
One of his concerns, he said at the time, was the accuracy of the information about corporate practices in South Africa, which had influenced the shareholder resolutions and the ACSR’s decision. He said that the Corporation would consider working with other universities and the Carnegie Foundation to set up a field office in South Africa to monitor the corporations.
However, Waldman recalls being “disappointed that the Corporation didn’t seem to be following our recommendations.”
DIVESTMENT STILL DEBATED
The ambiguous relationship between the ACSR and the CCSR, resulting from the CCSR’s veto power, continued throughout the 1980s and through to today.
According to The Crimson, the ACSR recommended complete divestment in 1984, but the Corporation decided against following the recommendation.
Eventually, the Corporation divested partially from its South African-related stock, selling one-third of its holdings in 1986.
This April, following the recommendation of the ACSR, the CCSR decided to divest from PetroChina, an oil company with ties to the Sudanese government.
But divestment is still under debate as a tactic for dealing with other oppressive regimes.
“You have to consider whether the one-time impact of washing your hands of a horrible economic situation or horrible regime is outweighed by the potential advantages and positive impact you can have by being a positive player,” Waldman says.
—Staff writer Nina L. Vizcarrondo can be reached at nvizcarr@fas.harvard.