Harvard and KP&L

THIS WEEK A KANSAS DISTRICT COURT must consider the objections of Concerned Citizens United, Inc. (CCU) to Kansas Power and Light Company's plan to build a new power plant. Harvard is KP&L's sixth largest shareholder. The CCU is made up of 35 farmers, who stand to lose 12,800 acres if the independent public utility succeeds in its land-taking action.

The farmers have filed a 51-page brief with the Court outlining their objections to current KP&L plans. They question several of KP&L's key assertions about the need for a new plant and the excessive amount of land KP&L wants to acquire by right of eminent domain.

The farmers are well prepared. They have drawn up a lengthy list of objections strongly supported by expert studies from the United States Bureau of Mines, the Environmental Protection Agency, Johns Hopkins University and Kansas State University.

CCU claims the amount of land requested is almost ten times that used for similar coal-burning plants, and that KP&L does not need to build a plant as large as 2800 megawatts to meet its forecasted energy needs over the next 15 to 20 years.

KP&L Corporate Secretary Ferd Meyer admitted that when the plant is completed, KP&L will be able to produce more power than is needed in the state. He also said that KP&L would sell the excess to neighboring power companies at higher prices.

Harvard will not take an active role in this battle for two reasons: No one here really knows much about the situation, and Harvard feels it is impossible to become involved in every controversial situation that engulfs companies in which it owns stock. But Harvard does have a responsibility to see that the practices of the corporations in which it has invested take into account social and environmental questions.

One of the biggest needs of the farmers in their fight against KP&L is publicity to counter KP&L's massive propaganda campaign. With a minimum of time and money, Harvard can voice to KP&L its concern that the farmers' complaints be considered seriously. Harvard should insure that its investment does not finance the exploitation either of the farmers or of the area's unpolluted land and air.

Harvard must adopt a more watchful attitude toward its investments if it truly is dedicated to the ideals of corporate responsibility. Presently, the Harvard portfolio is stocked with corporations which contribute to oppression, imperialism and death all over the globe while answering to virtually no one. If President Bok's rationale for setting up the Advisory Committee on Shareholder Responsibility was anything more than a measure to mollify student concern, Harvard must institute a policy questioning what practices its investments support, and pressuring its interests into a more responsive role.