Applause for Intensive Dialogue

To the Editors of The Crimson:

I would like to applaud the editorial entitled "South Africa: Intensive Dialogue Can Work" in the Crimson. The opinion highlights the essential point in asserting that the Harvard Corporation should not divest of all its holdings in portfolio companies in South Africa. The "intensive dialogue" is real, not a whitewash. Harvard is clearly acting in good faith to its commitment to promote reform in the Aparthied state by recently divesting of a company failing to follow the Sullivan and Tutu Principles, Harvard has had a positive influence by keeping its hand in the situation by not turning is back on it.

The Crimson editorial brings out three very important ideas. First, total divestiture as a moral statement is impractical--students can't and won't boycott the constellation of major corporations doing business in South Africa Second, the expansion of Harvard's endowment is nothing to scott at in calling for divestiture. Do proponents propose to curtail funds available for financial aid and University program at a time when the federal government is threatening to severely cut of necessary budget cuts across the board (in my personal opinion regrettably short-changing America's investment in its youths' higher education), the Corporation must bear endowment in mind. Thirdly, divesting does no good--applies no pressure--for less scrupulous investors will happily take over Harvard's stock in South Africa. Harvard is applying pressures last week's progress report demonstrates.

The dissenting opinion which also appeared potentially represents the "Double Standards' Jeane J. Kirk-Patrick became famous for criticizing in the Carter Administration. I would venture to guess that the same people who denounce "constructive engagement" in South Africa supporting reestablishing detente with the Soviet Union to communicate with the regime perhaps encourage its reform. The dissenters claim that "American fir: is supply computers that monitor the movement of Blacks" and the technology "that the military and police force use to suppress the majority," Well, the high tech items we trade to the Soviet Union are used to stifle opposition and indeed to build the guidance systems designed to target missiles at the United States. Is dialogue equitable with the Soviets, but not the South Africans?

Harvard's and Ronald Reagan's policy of "constructive engagement" are clearly the only positive influence we can assert. Both Harvard and the Reagan Administration have shown good faith, the latter recently publishing the most complete catalog of violated liberties in South Africa to date in the report prepared under Undersecretary of State for Human Rights, Elliot Abrams, Harvard is not blindly acting as an accomplice in racial hegemony. It is pursuing the only practical option keeping its hand in to best promote change. Mark P. Lagon '86