Bogus Assumption

THE ARGUMENT THAT apartheid is a fundamentally disgraceful and despotic system, propped up to a great extent by American computer and military-goods companies, is entirely valid. And the argument that Harvard, as a stockholder in companies which do some portion of their business in South Africa, has a moral obligation to press for desperately needed changes in that country, is equally valid.

But the call for divestiture rests on a bogus assumption: that dumping stock in a company somehow amounts to punishing that company for practices we find morally disgusting. In fact, divestiture would result in exactly the opposite. That stock would no doubt be bought by investors looking for profits, not progressive gains in South Africa. And at the same time, Harvard would lose any power it has to instigate changes in the companies concerned.

We ask President Bok to take the ACSR report seriously, because it reflects widespread concern in the community about where Harvard's $2.7 billion endowment goes. But at the same time, the action of divesting ultimately promises only inaction on the South African question.

Instead, we ask Bok and the Corporation to finally get serious about their statements over the last decade that they care about the South African question, and work--through stockholder resolutions and other tactics--to get those companies directly supporting the South African government to pull out from the country, and to push companies which do not directly propagate apartheid to adopt the Sullivan Principles as a bare minimum.

American companies' support for the police state is reprehensible. But Harvard would be foolish to dump its power to change them.