Assembly and Engelhard

To the Editors of the Crimson:

I am disappointed by Mr. Emmerich's reporting of events at Thursday's Student Assembly meeting ("Assembly Delays Taking a Position on South Africa"). I was under the impression that he did not view the vote to recess as a trial vote on the entire South Africa issue. Therefore, I did not bother to explain to him all the details of my efforts to bring the Engelhard issue before the Assembly last night. I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight.

1. The Assembly did not delay "taking a stand on an issue concerning Harvard's financial ties to the South African government." While the Engelhard Library issue relates to anti-apartheid efforts on campus, it is not the "South African government," but the Charles Engelhard Foundation that is in question here. I did not plan to bring up the Harvard Corporation's investment policy. The Assembly cannot tackle such a large issue at this early date: it needs to consult with SASC and other United Front groups before it decides what steps should be taken to force the Corporation to take seriously the demands 3500 students made last Spring.

2. Mr. Emmerich states that "several representatives wanted to present a resolution criticizing the...Kennedy School...for naming a library after...Engelhard." No final resolution had been drawn up in advance. I was still speaking to representatives individually when someone made the motion to recess. I had wanted to sound out representatives' opinions first, so that we could avoid a divisive trial vote. Unfortunately, The Crimson article gives just this misleading impression of the vote.

Further, Mr. Emmerich says that representatives who opposed the recess did not specify what resolutions they intended to propose, but he does not explain why. I had hoped to open up a discussion on the Engelhard issue before adjournment so that a resolution acceptable to most representatives could be worked out before the Assembly recessed. The person who had moved to recess was not aware of my concern for concensus and thought that the three hour-long meeting would drag on even longer since no specific resolution had been prepared.

We have here a simple misunderstanding and some understandably tired representatives--not a 35-to-26 trial vote concerning "Harvard's financial ties to the South African government." I hope that the Harvard-Radcliffe Student Assembly will become an activist organization through which all students can work to effect real changes on campus. Accurate and detailed information is needed in order to accomplish this goal. I urge students to attend Sunday's meeting to see first-hand what we are doing, and join us in the struggle for student power at Harvard. David A. Curtis '79

Emmerich responds:

If Mr. Curtis did not see the vote to recess Thursday night as an attempt by the Student Assembly to delay taking a stand on an issue related to South Africa, then he is in sharp disagreement with many representatives who attended the meeting. The main argument offered for recessing was that the assembly was not yet prepared to take a stand. Many representatives said the assembly should recess, allow its representatives to talk to their constituents, and then consider the issue.

Second, Mr. Curtis was not the only representative who wanted the assembly to consider the Engelhard issue before the Saturday demonstration. Perhaps Mr. Curtis only wanted to sound out the assembly's views, but other representatives wanted a definite vote, and were angered by the Assembly's decision to delay consideration of the issue. Finally, while Engelhard may not have officially represented the South African government, he was adviser, consultant and lobbyist for the government, and therefore the issue is at least indirectly "an issue concerning Harvard's ties to the South African government."