Herzlinger Protest Intended to Change Cardinal Health

I have to admit that I was caught off guard by sophomore Alex Herzlinger's letter to the editor (Nov. 17); I never expected that what I wrote (Commentary, Nov. 13) was so inflammatory. But as the issues he raises are very important, I will try to respond in brief. I will not deal as thoroughly with the "facts" he puts forward--they are partial truths at best--but rather will discuss the manner in which he characterizes our efforts.

Alex Herzlinger states in his letter that the leaflets which the Progresive Student Labor Movement (PSLM) handed out were an attempt to "encourage students to organize and demonstrate" against McPherson Professor of Business Administration Regina E. Herzlinger. That is simply not what they said. The only claim made about Professor Herzlinger was that she was a member of the Board of Directors of Cardinal Health; that, I presume, is true.

The leaflet went on to make several allegations against the company's actions, such as illegal behavior of security forces over the course of the strike. By Cardinal Health's own admission (see its statements in the Nov. 7 Crimson), this was in fact the case. That they have replaced the security company does not atone for previous violations or abuses. Nor has the new security company been free from suspicion of foul play.

But Alex Herzlinger states later in the letter that we accused Professor Herzlinger of hiring the security forces herself. In fact, as PSLM member Daniel M. Hennefeld '99 says in the Nov. 7 Crimson, "I don't know that she herself has had any personal involvement with the security firm." Our association of the company's actions with Professor Herzliger only took on the form of requesting that she try to put the strikers back to work.

I was also surprised that Alex Herzlinger felt we had made "wild, unsupported statements about [Professor Herzlinger's] integrity." I would argue that it was just the reverse. Having heard that she was in fact a good person, we assumed that she had simply not been informed of the corporation's actions for which she is legally responsible. Indeed, what we have done is to call upon her to make it public--or at least to tell us--that she disapproves of Cardinal Health's behavior and that she will try to remedy the situation. One-hundred seventy people's lives are at stake and though, as Alex Herzlinger points out, it is not a large proportion of Cardinal's workers, I still feel that it is important to respect their right to live decent lives.

The issue of free speech itself did not come up until we were physically prevented, by a private security firm, from distributing leaflets. Free speech, we feel, is a method by which we can help to end the strike--or at least do what we can in support of that end. There is, however, the question of whether or not the public distribution of information was appropriate. We would not have done so had Professor Herzlinger once met with us. I, along with others, have e-mailed her or left notes in her office asking for meetings many times since the end of last semester. She has either refused to respond or said that she would under no circumstances meet with us about Cardinal Health. Feeling that there was no other alternative to gain a point of leverage, we decided to engage in more public action.

Finally, I want to make it clear that we are not conducting a smear campaign, nor do we have a personal grudge against Professor Herzlinger and what she has done with her life. It is the fact that she is publicly responsible for the actions of Cardinal Health that has led us to apply pressure to her. Were she to tell us (or the public) that she was working to put the strikers back on the job, we would not only cease these actions but would be profoundly grateful, as would 170 workers in Peabody--for whom our actions really do matter. --Daniel R. Morgan '99