Beyond Critical Thinking

Anybody who has read this column before (thanks, Mom) knows that I don’t usually weigh in on campus politics. When I decided to write about Senior Gift Plus, I didn’t know what I was getting into. Since my last column, I’ve gotten compliments from people I’ve never met, and I’ve had friends act like I just killed their cat. The issue raises international questions about corporate money in repressive countries and local questions about the role of Senior Gift at Harvard. Everybody seems to be somehow involved in the issue.

For those who haven’t been following this, Senior Gift Plus is an organization that has been encouraging students to boycott the regular Senior Gift. They hope to pressure the folks who manage Harvard’s endowment into selling Harvard’s stock in PetroChina, an oil company whose parent is doing business with the Sudanese government. They want to do this by having seniors give to an alternative fund. If Harvard divests from PetroChina, the alternative fund goes to the same place the Senior Gift money goes. If Harvard hasn’t divested by October 25, 2005, the fund goes to the Kennedy School’s Carr Center for Human Rights. At the same time, the alternative fund sends the message that seniors don’t think Harvard’s money should go to governments that support genocide.

Critics of Senior Gift Plus have responded with a variety of arguments, from thought provoking to obscene. A new website, voicing a common complaint, claims that Senior Gift Plus shows any agenda can serve as an excuse to “hijack” Senior Gift. The site suggests a number of causes that students could use for boycotting the Gift. The first suggestion is that students justify their boycott based on a desire to see Harvard divest from U.S. Government T-Bills, and the others are similarly absurd. The site’s creators include an explanation of the serious point they are trying to make. They want, according to the site, to “point out that everyone has gripes with Harvard be they serious or stupid.” “‘Plus’ campaigns are slippery slopes,” they argue. “As soon as you open the door to linking unrelated issues, the floodgates can blow wide.”

The argument, in some form, has been made so many times it has become a cliché. If we pressure Harvard to divest from a company doing business with a genocidal government, next thing you know we’ll be going after T-bills. We shouldn’t weigh the merits of this particular case because we’d be setting a precedent that might lead us to do something stupid in the future. Apparently Harvard students can’t be trusted to realize that a T-bills campaign is qualitatively different than a campaign focused on doing something about genocide.

This ridiculous argument contains a small nugget of truth. Matt Mahan, one of the Senior Gift Plus organizers, has suggested that Senior Gift Plus will help students think critically about how they give money. I’m not worried that “thinking critically” will turn into “T-bills Divestment Campaign,” but critical thinking may threaten Harvard’s fundraising. Harvard will never be the world’s neediest cause. With an endowment second only to the Catholic Church, Harvard can’t tug the heart strings like those NGOs out there feeding their employees on Ramen noodles and hope. Harvard does incredible things, but it also does things that most disagree with. When so many morally pure charities need money, why should we give to one of the world’s wealthiest institutions when we disagree with some of its actions?

But the temptation to support only the purest and most needy charities hurts more than it helps. The Red Cross doesn’t allow gay men to give blood, an unnecessary restriction that reinforces harmful stereotypes. The Democratic Party of Franklin Roosevelt supported Strom Thurmond. The labor movement once tolerated unions that discriminated against women and minorities. But if donors had boycotted these institutions, America wouldn’t have blood drives, the New Deal, or the weekend. Sometimes if you want to support a positive outcome you have to be willing to accept the bad deeds of good organizations.

That changes when a personal decision becomes a public act. A man who rode the Montgomery buses in 1950 wasn’t making a statement of any kind. But after Rosa Parks gave that rider a chance to attack segregation by attacking the bus system, the decision to ride started to mean something different. The same rider, doing the same thing, in 1956, was sending the wrong message and hurting an important movement.

Some have complained that Senior Gift Plus is forcing students to choose between supporting the Senior Gift and opposing genocide. This is the wrong way to look at it. Senior Gift Plus gives seniors more options. Normally, students don’t have the power to help determine Harvard’s place in the world. Under normal circumstances, we as individuals may have to ignore the faults of good organizations in order to serve a higher purpose. This year, seniors, as a class, have a rare opportunity to speak with one voice on what kind of institution they want Harvard to be. They should use this opportunity.

Samuel M. Simon ’06, is a social studies concentrator in Eliot House. His column appears on alternate Wednesdays.