Boycott Plan

MONTHS AFTER the initial controversy over the use of Nestle products in dining halls, the Committee on House and Undergraduate Life (CHUL) has given a cautious endorsement to official University boycotts mandated by student referendum. A CHUL-Faculty Council committee report presented at last week's CHUL meeting argues that ideally students as individuals should boycott products, but that some products, such as sauce ingredients, are used by the University in a way that makes individual boycotts doomed to failure. If students show by ballot that they find use of some product to be morally repugnant, a boycott at an administrative level will take place, under CHUL's plan.

However, the CHUL proposals allow CHUL to set case-by-case the necessary percentage for student boycott approval depending on the costs a particular boycott would entail. This policy is misguided. Boycott referenda should be uniformly decided by a simple majority, and they should be binding.

The committee's recommendations are a result of careful debate among students and Faculty members, and should be heeded by University administrators.

But officials are showing signs of blatantly ignoring CHUL's recommendations. President Bok said during his open meeting with students Thursday that he was not familiar with the CHUL report. He added that he approved of individual boycotts, but was skeptical of the idea of an official University boycott. The CHUL recommendations could easily fall prey to Bok's commitment to maintaining a morally neutral university.

If administrators fail to heed CHUL, once again paternalism will win over democracy, and complacency will win over moral action.