Bad Day For Black Rock

THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE REPORT on Black Rock Forest is unacceptable not only for its bizarre self-contradictions but also for its quick willingness to betray principles traditionally considered inviolable. The report recommends that Harvard abandon its nine-year stand and permit the sale of 240 acres of the area to Consolidated Edison. Con Ed, the New York power utility, needs the land to build the Storm King pumped storage hydroelectric plant, a project that has drawn the opposition of local residents, the City of New York and every major American conservation organization.

As early as 1964, President Emeritus Nathan M. Pusey '28 publicly expressed Harvard's commitment both to its benefactors and to the protection of the aesthetic environment of the Black Rock Forest area. In a letter to The New York Times, Pusey stated that he and the trustees of Black Rock "are deeply concerned with preserving intact this important scientific area. Unless Consolidated Edison can demonstrate that there is no alternative to this radical proposal for altering the scenic beauty and scientific value of a largely unspoiled section of the Hudson River Valley, we wish to ally ourselves with The Times and with the individuals and organizations who are protesting the plans of the Consolidated Edison Company. It is our hope that an acceptable alternative can be found." And as late as 1970, he reaffirmed this position in a two-sentence letter to a member of the Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference, the project's most active opposition. "There has been no change in Harvard's attitude about Black Rock Forest," Pusey wrote, "We have no desire to have land under our trusteeship used for the purposes proposed by Con Ed." The committee's failure to include any consideration of the former President's position in its recommendations is hardly surprising in light of its self-confessed lack of "stamina". This admission appears to serve as a convenient excuse for not delving into the detailed environmental, aesthetic, and technical aspects of the complex Storm King proposal. It also shelters the shallow thinking which assumes that problems which fall on the University's doorstep will disappear if they are simply ignored. The assumption is as dangerous as it is vacuous.

HARVARD RECEIVED BLACK ROCK Forest from Ernest G. Stillman '08 upon his death in 1949. Stillman engaged in lengthy negotiations with the University, which refused to accept the bequest until he had included a generous endowment. The Black Rock Forest Trust Fund currently totals over $1.8 million. More than 75 per cent of its resources have been diverted to other Harvard needs, leaving the forest itself with a minimal budget.

In light of Stillman's generosity, the recommendations of Professors Crompton, Reifsnyder and Wilson can only appear exceptionally crass. This no doubt helps to explain the Stillman family's disposition to oppose any voluntary sale of the land by the University.

Harvard's performance in conforming to the wishes of its benefactors has traditionally been a major strength. Men such as George Bennett have at times been controversial for their narrow definition of the responsibilities of property ownership. But within the well-established framework of a university's obligations to its donors, stern adherence to ideals of proper conduct has been a source of strength to the school every since it was stung in the Arnold Arboretum suit several years ago. Harvard in the past has not broken lightly the terms of its endowments.

HARVARD'S RESPONSIBILITIES at Black Rock Forest have yet another dimension. The committee report delineates well the facets of this element--the concern over ecological damage. It notes that economic feasibility of the project involves the questionable construction of two other power plants currently stalled in legal action, and that without these facilities serious increases in air pollution could occur. It notes New York City's concern that the Catskill aqueduct, which supplies 40 per cent of the city's water, might be damaged by the project. It notes that the public safety could be endangered by the proposed dam, and that its rupture could inundate half the town of Cornwall. It notes the possible destruction of large portions of the striped bass population in the Hudson River, which provides spawning grounds for 80 to 90 per cent of the striped bass supply in the northeast United States. Although the committee professed a lack of stamina, it touched on almost every ecological question that the opposition to Storm King had cited during its lengthy court battles.

Yet despite the issues of breach of trust and despite the detailed analysis of potential environmental disasters, the committee concludes that Harvard should take no active steps to prevent Con Ed from buying its land. The contradiction is as incredible as it is blatant.

It would be unfortunate if the conclusions of this report, rather than the evidence it contains, were to determine the University's decision, and for this reason President Bok must reject its recommendations. Harvard's only responsible course of action is to continue its opposition to Consolidated Edison's purchase of any part of Black Rock Forest. Since President Emeritus Pusey first announced Harvard's opposition to voluntary surrender of the land, the grounds for support of his position have expanded. The issue is no longer only the obligations of trusteeship, but obligations to the environment and the public interest as well. Harvard must grow into new responsibilities, rather than shrink from its old ones.