PROTEST BUT DON'T DIVEST

To the Editors of the Crimson:

We the undersigned, believe that a settlement of the Angola question must be secured in order to avoid a disruption of university life, a disruption threatened by the uncompromising positions of both the Harvard Corporation and PALC. In order to obtain a settlement we propose the following:

1). That the Harvard Corporation reconsider its April 19th decision and announce its support for the shareholder resolution concerning disclosure of Gulf's activities in Angola. In their April 19th statement the President and the Fellows declared their intention to abstain from voting on this disclosure resolution because Gulf had given them "a commitment that it will provide the full range of information requested by the resolution in a forthcoming issue of its company publication." We cannot understand why the Corporation refuses to support a resolution that endorses the very course along which Gulf is supposedly proceeding. At the very least, if such a commitment does indeed exist, the resolution would merely serve to support Gulf's efforts to detail its involvement in Angola. But, if Gulf's commitment is either insincere or non-existent, the resolution would force a full--if reluctant--disclosure of Gulf's dealings with the Portuguese.

2). That the Harvard Corporation issue a public statement urging Gulf to cease its operations in Angola. In their April 19th statement, the President and the Fellows declare that they do not believe, "in view of the constructive actions a shareholder can take, that it is morally wrong to hold stock in American companies, such as Gulf, that have operations in nations controlled by governments that engage in actions considered repressive and inhumane." We agree--AS LONG AS THE "CONSTRUCTIVE ACTIONS A SHAREHOLDER CAN TAKE" INCLUDE A DETERMINED EFFORT TO FORCE SUCH AN AMERICAN COMPANY TO HALT INVOLVEMENT WITH "GOVERNMENTS THAT ENGAGE IN ACTIONS CONSIDERED REPRESSIVE OR INHUMANE." And, in the case of Gulf, we do not believe that Harvard should have to dispatch a fact-finder to investigate Portuguese colonial policies or Gulf's connection with the Portuguese government. PALC's view on Gulf's contribution to Portuguese oppression in Angola make it very clear that the University's profits accrued from Gulf's operations are indeed "blood money". It would, then, be immoral if the Corporation were to fail to voice its opposition to Gulf's policy of reaping profits for itself and the Portuguese colonialists at the expense of the people of Angola.

3). That the Harvard Corporation, however, not divest itself of its Gulf stock. In their April 19th statement, the President and the Fellows reject divestiture as ineffective and socially irresponsible. We reject divestiture simply because we believe that most American corporations accrue profits that can be construed as "blood money". Therefore, if Harvard were to sell its stock in Gulf, it must similarly divest itself of stock in all other companies that, as the Harvard Corporation states, "do business in Portugal, Angola, South Africa, or other nations whose governments are widely criticized." Such a sale would affect most of Harvard's investments and is simply not financially practical. Instead, we subscribe to the Corporation's contention that it is "preferable to exercise the University's power as a shareholder to benefit black Angolans." But if this is to be a legitimate argument against divestiture, the University must prove to the Harvard community that it will exercise this power, that it will finally put on its gloves rather than sit on its hands.

We hope that both the Corporation and PALC will consider these three proposals and that they will carefully frame their future decisions with some consideration for the Harvard community as a whole. 73 students and proctors of   Thayer and Weld Halls