Bok And Divestiture

To the Editors of The Crimson:

As one of the principal organizers of the "Encampment for Divestiture" and the "Rally for Divestment." I was very disturbed by the remarks of Peter J. Howe in the editorial entitled "Divestiture Follies." They demonstrate a callous disregard of the efforts of student activism and, more importantly, a fundamental ignorance of the issues surrounding divestiture.

First, none of the student groups working in the divestiture movement and none of the students, faculty and alumni whom I have worked with have taken the position that President Bok and the members of the corporation are racist. Had Howe taken the time to review the literature of the movement and had he listened more carefully to the speakers at the rally (I am not sure he was even at the rally, which was at Mem Church, not Mem Hall), he might have found the arguments presented for the divestiture a good deal more sophisticated than mere "name-calling." Saying that "many of the students who support divestiture compare President Bok and the Corporation members to "rednecks and Klansmen" and "racist nightriding scum" is a bold-faced lie, insupportable by all forms of evidence.

The purpose of the "Encampment for Divestiture" (at which I believe there were two six-packs, not cases, of Budweiser) was to, ay to set up a date and a time with President Bok for a public forum on divestiture on the spot. We criticized President Bok and Vice-President Steiner rightly for refusing to set up such meeting, which we feel would be in the interest of the entire. Harvard community. Again, had Peter Howe bothered to come by and speak with the "mob" which at its height umbered twenty-five students, he might are reached a different conclusion. One should be wary of relying solely on the Crimson for one's facts.

Howe states that President Bok is not voiding the issue. In fact, he writes, President Bok "has come up with two cogent letters" in these past twelve years. If Howe thinks that this is enough of a dialogue on as important a subject as divestiture, the members of the Harvard community, who support the movement, emphatically do not.

The editorial claims that Bok has made sure that Harvard doesn't invest in companies which don't sign the Sullivan principles." This is incorrect I refer Mr. Howe and the reader to an article in the Crimson dated March 23, "Harvard Tied to Nine Firms Ignoring Sullivan Principles." Harvard owns "more that $140 million in companies operating in South Africa that have not signed or have refused to comply with the Sullivan Principles." This represents more than 25% of Harvard's portfolio Further, the Sullivan Principles, denounced by Black South African leaders as purely cosmetic and a tool of the apartheid regime, do little to ameliorate the oppressive conditions in South Africa, for they affect less than I percent of South Africa's Black workers.

For Howe, divestiture means taking a "Pontius Pilate approach of dumping moral responsibility." Nothing could be farther from the truth. We are not asking Harvard to dump moral responsibility, we are asking Harvard to begin to take moral responsibility Hugh Calkins, the Corporation member whom Howe envisions toiling feverishly over the divestiture question, once flatly stated. "Harvard does not take ethical considerations into account when making investment policies." We think it is high time Harvard started. Anthony A. Ball '86   Third World Students Alliance   Black Students Association   Southern African Solidarity Coalition.