On Bok's Ethics

To the Editors of The Crimson:

In his open letter, President Bok's argument is presented as if it were a deductively logical discourse accurately representing the reality of the Harvard community's South Africa dilemma. Let us look first to the argument's, underlying assumptions, second, to its logic, and finally, to the choice it represents.

Bok assumes that:

The pursuit of knowledge is an ideologically neutral activity. Most of our professors have told us that this is delusion. Not only is the choice of a subject of research a critical expression of value, but the way in which the questions are posed, the assumptions underlying the investigation, and the conclusion drawn from the results, are all subject to ideology. Even science is not exempt from this qualification.

The preservation of the institution is of paramount importance. The institution's survival in fact "transcends the private interests of individual students and faculty members." One can recognize the protofascist shortcut developing here. Instead of the democratic process of individuals influencing groups and the institution, we have the institution influencing individuals. Everywhere in Bok's essay, collective expression is abhorred; isolated individual opinion is celebrated. Divide and conquer is the rule.

With these two assumptions. Bok seems to maintain an artificial separation of theory and practice. Not only must academic pursuit of knowledge be protected from the field of application, but also, our precious opiate, freedom of opinion and speech "as individuals" (Bok's emphasis), must be protected from the possibility that it might really influence policy!

Bok fears that an action expressing the will of the majority of the Harvard community is potentially oppressive to some vague minority of individuals. (Which individuals, with what stakes, we ask?) He contorts logic to imply that the present University position is neutral--he is always trying to elevate his position to the pedestal of the neutral. Come now. Is an untenured professor any safer speaking out for divestiture today than he or she would be speaking out for aid to aprtheid after divestiture had occured?

By agenda control and by separating "the reasoned expression of ideas and arguments" from a collective decision on the basis of these arguments, Bok has rendered reason impotent. Of course divestiture supporters have had to appeal to extra-systemic means of expressing their point of view! Bok attempts to dominate this point of view by labelling it emotional." I wonder at the horror this word arouses. Yes, confronting the reality of the human condition does involve emotion (some even go so far to claim that this is what humanizes us, offers us a vision of what's truly meaningful and purposeful in life). Of course, emotion produces negative results too--but what is the function of education if not to combine reason and insight and moral awareness in the proctorship of human affairs? Education teaches us to distinguish a reasoned argument of artifice and greed from one of true merit.

At last Bok pulls his final card. Sadly, he commiserates that misfortunes exist in society," and resignedly he laments that nothing can really be changed, that Harvard--its hundreds of renowned names, thousands of students, millions of dollars--really has only symbolic influence.

Throughout his contorted argument, Bok assumes a trade-off between academic freedom and moral freedom. He creates the "real administrative burdens" by his resistance to change and all his apologetic propoganda. Finally he is left with the one remaining issue that rings of truth: real financial losses. And despite his disclaimer, university corporations are individuals under the law. His financial ethic is one of private greed, not public responsibility.

But most insidious is Bok's pat on the head and counsel to mind our studies: "Individual scholars will occasionally have an influence through the persuasive power of their knowledge and ideas." Social change has only occurred in this country through organized protest, persistence, and practice. Carol Lynn Dornbrand '80