Divestment Dead, Not Forgotten

Nearly a decade has passed since South African Archbishop Desmond M. Tutu issued a strongly worded rebuke of Harvard's investments in South Africa before a packed audience in Memorial Church.

Now, African National Congress leader Nelson Mandela's appeal to end sanctions against South Africa--granted within hours of his Friday speech to the United Nations by the U.S. and other governments--has altered the social and political landscape Tutu helped to mold here not so long ago.

Divestment is dead, but it is not forgotten. The past is debated with fervor, and the future anticipated with refocused energy. An era of divisive politics is over, but the divisions still remain.

The apparent end of apartheid in South Africa means the end of years of controversy for the University--a period marked by protests, sit-ins and other forms of civil disobedience. For those involved in the fight over Harvard's policies toward South Africa during the heyday of that country's all-white regime, the scars of a bygone era will be hard to erase.

Dating back more than two decades, students,faculty and alumni engaged in a war with theUniversity's administration over Harvard'sinvestments in companies doing business with SouthAfrica.

The struggle began to peak in 1985, when agroup of concerned Harvard graduates joined forcesto form Harvard-Radcliffe Alumni Against Apartheid(HRAAA). The group's vision, critics often said,could be summed up in a single word: divestment.

Over the next several years, HRAAA memberswould campaign vigorously and vocally for theUniversity to sell off its substantial financialstake in South Africa-related stocks--a stakethat, at the time, approached an estimated $585million.

The HRAAA mission was not unprecedented.Student activists had for years battled withHarvard administrators over the social and moralimplications of the University's investments. Atone point, in 1986, their protest included theconstruction of a shantytown that filled HarvardYard for several months.

What made HRAAA different, though, was itsmembers' determination to fight the University onits own terms, from the top down. By nominatingcandidates for election to the University's Boardof Overseers--one of two top governing boards atHarvard--HRAAA's leaders hoped to force Harvard tochange.

At first, it seemed as though the new group wasdestined to have some impact. In 1985, Gay Seidman'78 became the first of four HRAAA-sponsoredcandidates to be elected to the Board ofOverseers.

But by last spring, HRAAA's efforts had fizzledout and the group had virtually ceased to exist.HRAAA lost its last remaining representatives onthe Board of Overseers when the six-year terms of1973 Law School graduate Consuela M. Washingtonand Duke Professor Peter H. Wood '64 expired.

Meanwhile, Harvard never fully divested. As of1989, Harvard's investments in companies doingbusiness with South Africa totalled about $164million, far less than in earlier years, butsubstantial nonetheless.

Harvard administrators say the reduction waspart of their long-term policy of "selectivedivestment" and had nothing to do with HRAAA'sefforts.

"I don't think [HRAAA] had a great impact onUniversity policy," says Daniel Steiner '54, theUniversity's general counsel for most of the yearswhen divestment was a hot campus issue.

"The basic University policy on South Africawas adopted well before [HRAAA] candidates startedto run for the Board of Overseers," Steiner says."There were a set of criteria that were appliedwhich either led to divestment or to Harvard'sretaining the stock."

For example, Steiner says, in several casesHarvard stopped investing in companies deemed notactive enough in promoting equal employmentopportunity in South Africa.

Even some HRAAA members agree that, in manyways, their efforts failed.

"We didn't accomplish what we wanted toaccomplish," says former HRAAA executive directorRobert P. Wolff '54, a professor of Afro-Americanstudies and philosophy at the University ofMassachusetts.

Still, the alumni are convinced that they leftHarvard with a lasting legacy of their influence.

For one thing, they say, their success insponsoring electable overseer candidates causedthe University to change the process by whichnominations to the board are accepted.

More importantly, however, the alumni activistssay they taught the University a lesson inmorality that extends beyond the case of SouthAfrica.

"We raised the issue that a university'sbusiness decisions should be judged by standardscommensurate with the philosophy it teaches in theclassroom," says Donald M. Solomon, a 1973graduate of the Law School who served as HRAAA'sexecutive director in 1989 and 1990.

"HRAAA was very successful in keeping the issueof overall social responsibility on the agenda fortens of thousands of Harvard alumni who receivedour publications or saw our candidates' statementson the overseers ballots," Solomon says. "The factthat our position didn't prevail with theadministration is secondary to the fact that thedebate simply would not have occurred without ourinitiative and participation."

Steiner disputes that assessment.

"It's hard to say that Harvard was unaware ofthe issue," he says. "Social responsibility oninvesting had been an issue at the University formore than two decades [before HRAAA was formed]."

The questions about Harvard's past are notlikely to be resolved anytime soon, even thoughboth sides agree that the issue of apartheid isessentially mute. Indeed, some alumni say, thedebate that raged so intensely for so many yearsis far from over. Rather, they suggest, it islikely to continue, as the University maps out itsfuture policy toward a new South Africa.

Ironically, many of the HRAAA members who wereso adamant that the University divest itselfentirely of South Africa-related investments arenow calling upon Harvard to provide financialsupport for the fragile democracy that isdeveloping.

"It's definitely the end of one phase and thebeginning of another," says Robert B. Zevin, anHRAAA member who ran unsuccessfully for the Boardof Overseers in 1989. "Many of us who were urgingdivestment up until this point will now be askinginstitutions like Harvard to consider positivesteps they can take to support economic andpolitical democracy in South Africa."

And HRAAA members like Wolff are pushingfurther, calling on Harvard to establishintellectual links with historically Blackuniversities in South Africa.

"Harvard could play a very important role insupporting higher education in South Africa," saysWolff, who is developing a program at theUniversity of Massachusetts to conductsimultaneous classes with students in the UnitedStates and South Africa using telephone andcomputer hook-ups. "That's something Harvard canafford to do without any effort."

But Wolff and Zevin say that, given recenthistory, they don't expect the University to jumpat their suggestions.

"Harvard, having dragged its heels to thispoint, is likely to drag its heels in the nextstage," says Zevin.

It is that feeling--a feeling of disappointmentand frustration borne of years of conflict betweenalumni with a moral cause and administrators withfinancial responsibilities--that even the end ofapartheid can't easily overcome.

"Over a long period of time, Harvard had theopportunity to take a position of moral andintellectual leadership and it failed to do so,"says Wolff.Crimson File PhotoDANIEL STEINER '54

Dating back more than two decades, students,faculty and alumni engaged in a war with theUniversity's administration over Harvard'sinvestments in companies doing business with SouthAfrica.

The struggle began to peak in 1985, when agroup of concerned Harvard graduates joined forcesto form Harvard-Radcliffe Alumni Against Apartheid(HRAAA). The group's vision, critics often said,could be summed up in a single word: divestment.

Over the next several years, HRAAA memberswould campaign vigorously and vocally for theUniversity to sell off its substantial financialstake in South Africa-related stocks--a stakethat, at the time, approached an estimated $585million.

The HRAAA mission was not unprecedented.Student activists had for years battled withHarvard administrators over the social and moralimplications of the University's investments. Atone point, in 1986, their protest included theconstruction of a shantytown that filled HarvardYard for several months.

What made HRAAA different, though, was itsmembers' determination to fight the University onits own terms, from the top down. By nominatingcandidates for election to the University's Boardof Overseers--one of two top governing boards atHarvard--HRAAA's leaders hoped to force Harvard tochange.

At first, it seemed as though the new group wasdestined to have some impact. In 1985, Gay Seidman'78 became the first of four HRAAA-sponsoredcandidates to be elected to the Board ofOverseers.

But by last spring, HRAAA's efforts had fizzledout and the group had virtually ceased to exist.HRAAA lost its last remaining representatives onthe Board of Overseers when the six-year terms of1973 Law School graduate Consuela M. Washingtonand Duke Professor Peter H. Wood '64 expired.

Meanwhile, Harvard never fully divested. As of1989, Harvard's investments in companies doingbusiness with South Africa totalled about $164million, far less than in earlier years, butsubstantial nonetheless.

Harvard administrators say the reduction waspart of their long-term policy of "selectivedivestment" and had nothing to do with HRAAA'sefforts.

"I don't think [HRAAA] had a great impact onUniversity policy," says Daniel Steiner '54, theUniversity's general counsel for most of the yearswhen divestment was a hot campus issue.

"The basic University policy on South Africawas adopted well before [HRAAA] candidates startedto run for the Board of Overseers," Steiner says."There were a set of criteria that were appliedwhich either led to divestment or to Harvard'sretaining the stock."

For example, Steiner says, in several casesHarvard stopped investing in companies deemed notactive enough in promoting equal employmentopportunity in South Africa.

Even some HRAAA members agree that, in manyways, their efforts failed.

"We didn't accomplish what we wanted toaccomplish," says former HRAAA executive directorRobert P. Wolff '54, a professor of Afro-Americanstudies and philosophy at the University ofMassachusetts.

Still, the alumni are convinced that they leftHarvard with a lasting legacy of their influence.

For one thing, they say, their success insponsoring electable overseer candidates causedthe University to change the process by whichnominations to the board are accepted.

More importantly, however, the alumni activistssay they taught the University a lesson inmorality that extends beyond the case of SouthAfrica.

"We raised the issue that a university'sbusiness decisions should be judged by standardscommensurate with the philosophy it teaches in theclassroom," says Donald M. Solomon, a 1973graduate of the Law School who served as HRAAA'sexecutive director in 1989 and 1990.

"HRAAA was very successful in keeping the issueof overall social responsibility on the agenda fortens of thousands of Harvard alumni who receivedour publications or saw our candidates' statementson the overseers ballots," Solomon says. "The factthat our position didn't prevail with theadministration is secondary to the fact that thedebate simply would not have occurred without ourinitiative and participation."

Steiner disputes that assessment.

"It's hard to say that Harvard was unaware ofthe issue," he says. "Social responsibility oninvesting had been an issue at the University formore than two decades [before HRAAA was formed]."

The questions about Harvard's past are notlikely to be resolved anytime soon, even thoughboth sides agree that the issue of apartheid isessentially mute. Indeed, some alumni say, thedebate that raged so intensely for so many yearsis far from over. Rather, they suggest, it islikely to continue, as the University maps out itsfuture policy toward a new South Africa.

Ironically, many of the HRAAA members who wereso adamant that the University divest itselfentirely of South Africa-related investments arenow calling upon Harvard to provide financialsupport for the fragile democracy that isdeveloping.

"It's definitely the end of one phase and thebeginning of another," says Robert B. Zevin, anHRAAA member who ran unsuccessfully for the Boardof Overseers in 1989. "Many of us who were urgingdivestment up until this point will now be askinginstitutions like Harvard to consider positivesteps they can take to support economic andpolitical democracy in South Africa."

And HRAAA members like Wolff are pushingfurther, calling on Harvard to establishintellectual links with historically Blackuniversities in South Africa.

"Harvard could play a very important role insupporting higher education in South Africa," saysWolff, who is developing a program at theUniversity of Massachusetts to conductsimultaneous classes with students in the UnitedStates and South Africa using telephone andcomputer hook-ups. "That's something Harvard canafford to do without any effort."

But Wolff and Zevin say that, given recenthistory, they don't expect the University to jumpat their suggestions.

"Harvard, having dragged its heels to thispoint, is likely to drag its heels in the nextstage," says Zevin.

It is that feeling--a feeling of disappointmentand frustration borne of years of conflict betweenalumni with a moral cause and administrators withfinancial responsibilities--that even the end ofapartheid can't easily overcome.

"Over a long period of time, Harvard had theopportunity to take a position of moral andintellectual leadership and it failed to do so,"says Wolff.Crimson File PhotoDANIEL STEINER '54