For the Record

To the Editors of The Crimson:

In their letter of March 15, Henry Park, Brad Mank, a number of people from the law school and Alan Shaw accuse me of using in my column arguing for divestiture "the exact phraseology one would expect from an apartheid judge condemning a freedom-fighter to death." They also accuse me of thinking "white domination" to be "humane," and of "accepting without criticism that corporations behave progressively" in South Africa. They further imply I do not support the armed liberation struggle of the African National Congress. While anyone who actually read my column of March 5 would be rather puzzled by this letter, it is possible that some who had not read the piece might get the wrong impression about my piece and my own opinions about divestment and South Africa. Therefore I should make a few things clear.

1)I support total divestiture and only total divestiture.

2)I believe the Sullivan Principles to be a cruel hoax and an aid to apartheid.

3)I support the African National Congress (ANC) and its strategy for liberation: i.e., armed struggle, but holding out the possibility of negotiations, the strategy of Robert K. Mugabe.

4)I believe the Harvard Corporation has an amoral investment policy, but that there have been changes for the better in that policy since 1972, changes only brought about because of student pressure and activism.

I do not believe total warfare in South Africa would be a good thing in itself. However, with every passing day it becomes more necessary, for liberation is not only a good thing, in itself, it is also unstoppable. Park and his co-authors seem to be particularly mad at me for suggesting there might be something nasty about a total war on race lines. This is one of the few points of my article and my personal position that they did not misrepresent. I would rather have the African National Congress come to power through something other than total war. Perhaps that is no longer possible. Surely it is desirable, for war is no fun and innocents always die, no matter how just the cause.

The positions outlined above are the positions I took in my column. "Divestiture: A History." They are the positions I have taken in public. They are positions known to at least three of the signers of the letter which ended asking me "which side are you on?" Honestly, I am baffled by the virulence of their attack, since it has no relation to my position on South Africa and divestment. I would hope that those people who read Henry Parketal's letter would look at my article before they class me as a racist or a sellout. Damon A. Silvers '86   H.R SASC