Subtle Pressure

To the Editors of The Crimson:

As my A-12 section was piling into Lamont Library for our regularly scheduled Tuesday session, we were confronted with a stark decision. My section leader announced that today's section would be held in the newly erected shantytown, located in the Yard. Anybody who wished to come was welcome. Those who did not desire to attend the meeting could go to a make-up section which would be scheduled for them. He also said that each person's choice would in no way effect the final grades. On the surface, this decision seemed free and unpressured. But was it?

My section leader had already vigorously recounted to the class his participation in the previous night's events--the meeting in Emerson Hall and the following rally. He said that he had decoyed the police while his counterparts were erecting the shanties. He was part of the protesters' legal council and had maintained a vigil at the shanties the entire evening. He spoke of the evening proudly, wearing a boyish grin. There was no doubt he had strongly held beliefs on the subject of divestment.

The class was given 10 minutes to decide our fate. And although I believe that my decision not to attend the meeting will have little effect on my final grade, this possibility was something which each one of us considered as we sat there during the tense period. It was like being asked by the Pope if you believed in God, or turning in CUE forms before grades are handed out. His position was inherently part of the information which each of us used to weigh the pros and cons.

During those 10 minutes, one of the students asked if we could go to the shanties as observers. He wanted to know if we could attend without having our group's presence categorized as an action in support of the protesters. My section leader admitted that by attending the meeting, we would at least be giving tacit support to the protesters. And although he attempted to downplay the possibility, he could give no assurances that our group would not be labeled as protesters by the media. He admitted that a picture of our group could wind up on the front page of The Crimson or Globe with a caption like, "Harvard students protesting the college's investment policies in South Africa."

On the first vote, a majority of the class voted against having the session at the shanties. We debated another five minutes and on the second vote just over a majority had swung in favor of attending the session. However, by the time we had all made it to the shanties from Lamont, only two or three people had decided to stay away--a testimonial to the intense pressure being felt.

I recognize that for a movement which is trying to gain more support among the student population having section leaders hold their classes at the shanties is an ingenious move. It widens the political base and makes the protesters appear to have larger numbers than what they actually possess. However, it seems a bit of a corruption to the educational process to which this university is charged. It also seems as though there is a possibility that other section leaders will not be as fairminded as mine. Not attending these section leaders' meeting could, in fact, lower a student's grade.

And when I walk into section next week, I'm sure everyone will nervously joke about yesterday's events. But all will remember. The line has been drawn; my group has been separated. As I have said, holding sections at the shanties is good politics, but is it just politics? David Rettig '89