The ACSR and South Africa

IN RECOMMENDING that the Harvard Corporation vote its shares against resolutions that would force companies to disclose their sales in the Republic of South Africa, the Advisory Committee on Shareholder Responsibility acted in a way that is, if not racist, certainly misguided. The ACSR rejected the disclosure resolutions aimed at the International Business Machines Company and Texaco because the companies do not violate U.S. policy by trading with South Africa's minority government, and because the ACSR is not sure that IBM and Texaco do not in fact aid blacks in that white-ruled country by giving them jobs.

These recommendations betray an impressive ignorance of the role of U.S. companies in South Africa. IBM is a particularly glaring case of a company whose sales contribute directly to the government's ability to implement its racist and repressive policies. The South African government uses IBM computers to coordinate a pass system that keeps politically active blacks from finding jobs. Blacks who agitate for political change lose their passes for "whites-only" areas, and are forced out of the industrialized areas of the country. IBM also supplies the computers for the South African military, much of which is geared toward internal repression.

Donald F. Turner, professor of Law and chairman of the ASCR, justifies the committee's recommendation that IBM not be required to disclose its sales in South Africa because he says the company has a good record of employing blacks there. But because of the apartheid laws, blacks can only be employed beneath a "colour bar"; they may not work above certain levels in industry. This allows the white minority to keep blacks out of positions of authority from which they could perhaps seek to change the apartheid system.

A similar argument can be made regarding Texaco's sales in South Africa. The apartheid state is built on the exploitation of South Africa's rich mineral resources as well as the exploitation of South Africa's people. In order to mine and smelt those minerals, the government must have oil. True, blacks are employed in the refineries; but the Corporation, as a responsible shareholder, should examine the terms under which those blacks are provided employment. Given the restrictions placed on black job levels by the government, it is hard to see how much Texaco could do for blacks; it is much clearer that trading with South Africa helps reinforce the apartheid regime.

Had the ACSR stopped to investigate the South African situation, it would have discovered that the leaders of South African black organizations have consistently called for a trade boycott. Surely South African blacks can judge for themselves whether the role of U.S. corporations aids or harms them in their struggle to end repression.