Rewriting the Gospel According to Bok

A CRACK has appeared in the beseiged brick facade of Massachusetts Hall. The fault is a narrow one, but it is more than wide enough to engulf President Derek C. Bok's carefully argued and heretofore intransigent investment policy.

In a wide-ranging open letter issued last week, the president reaffirmed his opposition to total divestment and summarized recent efforts to effect change in South Africa through the preferred policy of "intensive dialogue."

Bok also announced two new University initiatives designed to advance social justice in South Africa. Harvard has allocated $1 million over the next three years to fund student, faculty, and staff participation "in the effort to overcome apartheid [emphasis added]."

In addition, Bok stated, Harvard's governing Corporation will soon adopt a change in its investment guidelines "that may lead to the sale of stock of firms selling substantial quantities of goods used in the administration of apartheid."

The latter actions represent an abrupt departure from long-standing University policy. Indeed, they fundamentally contradict explicit principles that have defined Bok's stance since 1979. These actions suggest a breakdown of the president's logic or resolve and place his opposition to divestment in a perilously vulnerable position.

TO HIS CREDIT, Bok has written voluminously and eloquently on the subject of shareholder responsibility. Throughout, three basic tenets reign supreme: Harvard should not indiscriminately sell its stock in corporations operating in South Africa because such a gesture would be ineffectual, inappropriate, and inconsistent.

* Total divestment would be ineffectual because it would result merely in the transfer of stock to other investors. It would be ineffectual because the companies in question conduct only a small portion of their business in South Africa and account for only a small portion of South Africa's total industrial base. It would be ineffectual because in one defiant, symbolic move, Harvard would relinquish its material influence in South Africa.

* Divestment would be inappropriate because it violates the sacred and limited mission of the University. It would be inappropriate because institutions of higher education should not use their power to impose political and economic views on organizations and individuals beyond the campus. It would be inappropriate because it would threaten freedom of opinion within the University while exposing Harvard to coercion from without. It would be inappropriate because it would violate the trust of Harvard's benefactors, incurring financial loss and diverting University funds from their intended, rightful purpose.

* Divestment would be inconsistent because apartheid may be no worse than other systems of oppression, and countless immoral regimes could warrant comparable if impractical action. Singling out South Africa for divestment would be inconsistent, arbitrary, and opportunistic, undermining Harvard's global credibility and entangling it in a web of logical ramifications. Moreover, divestment would be inconsistent--even hypocritical--as long as Harvard and members of its community accept contributions, products, and employment from corporations with ties to South Africa.

The refrains are familiar, but last week, the tune changed.

MASS. HALL'S LATEST SORTIES in the South Africa conflict subtly contradict chapters two and three of the gospel according to Bok.

It goes without saying that the president's most recent, extraordinary measures accord South Africa a unique place on the University's economic and political agendas. For the first time, Bok seems unabashedly unhindered by the fact that countless other suffering peoples could also benefit from Harvard's assistance. Whether Bok has opened a humanitarian Pandora's box has yet to be determined. Clearly, he has broken the paralytic grip that constrained him in the face of daunting moral challenges.

The Corporation's planned revisions in its shareholder guidelines represent another first: for the first time, Harvard's objective will be to undermine the South African police state--to subvert apartheid as a legal, governmental institution--and not merely to ameliorate the material conditions of Black South Africans in the workplace.

From now on, Bok wrote, Harvard's investment policy will be "consistent with our belief that American companies should not be engaged in supplying goods of strategic significance in the administration of apartheid." This newest tactic shifts the battle front from the factory floor to Pretoria's corridors of power, and it significantly politicizes Harvard's position.

Indeed, the new investment guidelines are tantamount to the U.S. sanctions for which Bok has so vigorously and "privately" lobbied--the same sanctions that he has repeatedly insisted belong within the sphere of the federal government.

Bok's decision to establish a $1 million anti-apartheid fund with Harvard money similarly defies his strictures about the appropriate uses of University resources. As described in the open letter, this fund would support a wide array of endeavors, including lobbying for federal sanctions against South Africa, "contributing money to the defense of South Africans whose human rights have been violated," and sending Harvard students to South Africa to provide legal, medical, and educational services.

THE ADMIRABLE CHARACTER of these proposals makes them no less irreconcilable with Bok's stated beliefs. Consider some of the president's past proclamations:

"Universities cannot exert economic leverage to affect disputes beyond the campus without inviting outside pressure to influence academic policies (April 6, 1979)."

"Even if all the preceding [arguments for divestment] could be accepted, it would still be hard to justify the use of Harvard's resources to overcome apartheid [emphasis added]. After all, the Corporation has a legal and moral responsibility to administer Harvard's resources to further the normal academic purposes of the University and not to support causes or combat injustices for which we are not directly responsible.... It would clearly be an abuse of trust to contribute a significant amount of Harvard's funds for the benefit of other endeavors to combat suffering and oppression, such as human rights organizations and hunger action groups (April 6, 1979)."

"The line is crossed when a university goes beyond expressing opinions and tries to exert economic pressure by divesting stock or engaging in a boycott in order to press its views on outside organizations (Oct. 1, 1984)."

Last week, President Bok quietly but irrevocably crossed the line--the party line, the intricate and legalistic public relations line that has upheld his position for more than a decade. For better or for worse, the University can no longer credibly invoke the gospel according to Bok in defense of the status quo.