Feeling the Student Pulse

Today, tomorrow and Wednesday the Student Assembly will distribute questionnaires asking student opinion on a number of campus issues. The articles on this page examine four of those issues. Should Harvard University take whatever steps are necessary to change the name of the Engelhard Library?

Yes

The following article was written by the Southern Africa Solidarity Committee.

Charles Engelhard was the leading American financial patron of the apartheid regime for over two decades and the record of his dealings in South Africa is well documented. among others, one can point to The New York Times, March 24, 1969, Dec. 24, 1969, The Star (Johannesburg), September 1970. Charles Engelhard parlayed an inheritance of $20 million into a $250 million fortune through his control of 15 per cent of the South African gold mining industry. South African gold miners earn on an average less than half the official South African poverty wage level and an average of three miners die per shift.

In the aftermath of the 1960 Sharpeville massacre, in which South African police murdered 67 unarmed blacks, Engelhard organized the American bank loans which salvaged the South African economy. He personally owned 23 South African corporations (see Africa Today and Forbes). Engelhard served as an administrator of the migrant labor system which brutally separates black families. He was the only foreigner ever top sit on the boards of the Witwatersrand Native Labor Association and the Native Recruiting Agency, two government agencies which recruit cheap African labor to work in the mines (see Ruth First, The South African Connection).

Engelhard consistently defended the essential structure of apartheid. At the inauguration of the new Prime Minister John Vorster in 1967, Engelhard proudly proclaimed, "The policy of South Africa as expressed by the new Prime Minister is as much in the interests of South Africa as anything I can think of or suggest" (see First, also Secheba, February 1969). Despite Engelhard's hollow words about his concern for the "dignity of man" and "improved skills and living conditions," his mines were just as brutal and inhumane as any other South African mine. Actions speak louder than words. Never by word or by deed did Engelhard condemn the migrant labor system which he enforced and from which he profited. He never once demanded an end to political repression. He never once called for black majority rule. Whatever his connections with liberal America, innocence by association cannot exonerate him. He may have contributed money to the NAACP, but the NAACP did not feel obligated to name a building after him.

Should the University honor such a man by dedicating a library of public affairs to him? Dean Allison,k when pressed by the Kennedy School Black Students Caucus, admitted that there is in fact no contract requiring the naming of the library after Engelhard. If so, why not change the name? Must we seek funds from the honor every wealthy donor, no matter how immoral their source of wealth? Should we dedicate a library to a profiteer of slave labor? Are there simply no limits to such expediency? Should not the Harvard Corporation take heed of the words of its own ACSR: "There are times when considerations of good citizenship supercede economic considerations."

Throughout the controversy the administration has callously ignored the single most important party in this issue--those silenced by repression and premature death, those South African gold miners from whom Engelhard extracted his fortune. In the early 1970s students at Princeton forced their administration to honor alumnus Charles Engelhard. We must nor permit Engelhard's wealth to legitimize exploitation is South Africa. Honor should not be sold to the highest bidder. Vote yes on Question one.

No

David M. Gullick '80, who wrote this article, works at the Engelhard Library.

Note the word "whatever" in the question above. Its inclusion means that a "yes" vote endorses steps even if they are immoral or illegal. This ambiguous approach also reveals that the Assembly was unable to cite specific practical steps.

The Assembly knows that the Engelhard Foundation obviously would not have turned over $1 million without first having insisted on recognition and a legal contract. Harvard would be breaking that legal contract by renaming the Engelhard Library. Even if there was only a moral contract and even if the donation was returned, the Engelhard Foundation could still sue Harvard because 1) the Foundation has been without the use of its money for some time and 2) Harvard allowed Charles Engelhard's name to be smeared at a public dedication.

The Engelhard Foundation may have remained quiet during the current controversy because it knows that Harvard's acceptance easily outweighs a student protest in the public eye. But it would be a different story if Harvard itself turned against Charles Engelhard. The foundation would be left with no alternative except to clear its name by suing Harvard; and it's difficult to imagine a court in which Harvard would not lose.

An Engelhard Foundation victory in court could not only leave the library's name unchanged while giving Charles Engelhard a judicial stamp of approval; it could also lead to the awarding of damages, thus forcing a cash flow in the opposite direction. Would students want a portion of their tuition going to the Engelhard Foundation?

There are other question that need to be asked. Why isn't the financing of all Harvard libraries and buildings subject to scrutiny? Did the endowment which subsidizes a Harvard education ever receive money from a New England slave trader or an anti-semite? Will the fear of being attacked scare off potential contributors? Should Harvard require a loyalty oath or purity pledge from students and professors as well as donors? If so, would you pass? Would your parents and grandparents pass? The father of Sophie Engelhard (KSG '77) was publicly branded as another Adolf Hitler--could your father be next?

An investigation of the claims against Charles Engelhard reveals that he is more of a tool than a symbol. In fact, George Croft of The Boston Globe (Oct. 25, 1978, page 70) reports that Charles Engelhard was actually a liberal Democrat who was also a liberal on apartheid! Mr. Croft adds that Mr. Engelhard was a close friend of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson and served as a personal representative of the White House at the coronation of Pope Paul VI and at the Independence Day celebrations in two Africa countries: Gabon and Zambia. Mr. Croft also quoted from a speech Engelhard delivered in Johannesburg: "Fuller use must be made of potential skills and capacities of all peoples who make up the population of South Africa. And this calls for more widespread education so that leadership and ability can develop in all sections of the community, and the non-European must have the opportunity to improve his standard of living, if he is to be encouraged to work alongside the European." Mr. Croft further reported that The New York Times quoted Engelhard as saying: "South Africa, for world acceptance, must begin to realize the dignity of man as a basic concept."

Richard Tofel '79 of The Harvard Independent (Nov. 30, 1978, page 3) reports that Charles Engelhard heavily invested his time and money in the campaigns of John Kennedy '40 and Robert Kennedy '48. Mr. Tofel added that Lyndon Johnson joined liberal Senators Edward Kennedy '54, Harrison Williams, Hubert Humphrey and Mike Mansfield at the Engelhard funeral in 1971. And Kennedy School Dean Graham T. Allison notes that Mansfield is a director of the Engelhard Foundation and that the Foundation has given money to the United Negro College Fund, the National Urban League and to community organizations in Newark, New Jersey (The Boston Globe, Oct. 25, 1978, page 70).

Is it credible to contend that Harvard, John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Edward Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Mike Mansfield, Harrison Williams, Hubert Humphrey, the United Negro College Fund and the National Urban League would openly welcome the friendship or money of an exploiter?

Do you favor an alternative to the current 21-meal dining plan?

William G. Mayer '79, a member of the food services subcommittee of the Committee on Houses and Undergraduate Life [CHUL], wrote the following article [excerpted here] as the sub committee's report to CHUL.

The complaint is rather frequently heard at Harvard, that all resident students are required to purchase a compulsory 21 meal per week board contract, even though statistics show that the average student eats only 14 meals per week. We believe that many residents of Harvard College desire a choice of meal plans, which would allow them greater flexibility and possible monetary savings, as compared to the present 21-meal plan.

In evaluating different meal plans, however, it is important to keep in mind that the price of current meal contracts already takes into account the fact that most students eat only 14 meals per week. If all students ate the 21 allowable meals, the amount of food consumed would necessarily rise, and board contracts would be substantially higher than they are now.

In calculating the costs of alternative meals plans, we have assumed that the fixed costs of the Food Services--labor, administrative, and overhead--should be borne equally by all resident students. The variable prices will reflect only the differences in the non-fixed, food costs. (This appears to be the practice at every other school we have examined.) Thus the savings that might result to those who purchase a 14-meal plan would come solely from a reduction in the cost of the food that they eat. At the same time, this would mean that board contracts would rise for those purchasing the new 21-meal plans.

Had a 21-14 variable meal plan been in effect in 1978-79, those choosing a 21-meal plan would have been required to pay $60.30 more. Those choosing a 14-meal plan would have saved $72.80. In light of the estimated $8000 that it presently costs to spend a year at Harvard, these cost differences are probably not enough to have a major impact on a student's overall financial situation, but they are substantial.

Variable meal plans require tighter security precautions because they would create an entirely new category of stolen meals. At present, almost all stolen meals occur when a Harvard student tries to obtain a meal for a non-Harvard friend. Under student holding a contract which allows him less than 21 meals per week must be prevented from taking part in meals for which he is not eligible.

A variable meal plan could be enforced in any number of ways--meal coupons, ticket books, a compute system--but regardless of the method, a flexible meal system would require some major changes in dining hall security. A partial list of such changes would be:

1) locking all back doors to dining halls;

2) use of only non-student checkers;

3) tighter checking of IDs, possibly picture IDs;

4) tighter policing of students removing food from the dining halls.

A more flexible, variable meal plan would also entail certain coasts for the House system. By allowing any one group to opt out of a substantial number of meals, the overall function for which the Houses were first established--that of bringing together a group of students and tutors for frequent educational and social contacts--would undoubtedly be undermined. At present, most students meet other people in their House primarily by eating with them. If more students eat off-campus, a certain degree of House community and closeness would necessarily be sacrificed.

The Food Services Subcommittee is not prepared to make a final recommendation on this matter until the subject is discussed before the full CHUL.

Would you favor the reopening of a Writing Center for all undergraduates?

Yes

At present, Harvard has no facilities for dealing with the writing problems of undergraduates. Freshmen may obtain help from their Expos preceptors, and all students can get psychological counselling and friendly advice from Room 13, the Bureau of Study Counsel, and UHS psychologists; however, there is no place for students to get advice specifically about their writing--about style, grammar, technical methods to snap out of writer's block, or help with a specific paper. Counselors at the above organizations and many students have expressed the desire for a service similar to the Hilles Writing Center that was shut down at the end of the 1977-78 academic year. The Center provided free, unpressured, one-to-one counselling to all interested students.

No

A Writing Center costs a great deal of money. The budget for the Hilles Center last year was ca. $25,000, most of it salaries. Expos Director Richard Marius, who closed the Center, estimated that it provided only 800 student-hours a piece. He felt that a $31.25 per student-hour, the service was more than Harvard could afford. Since freshmen presumably need the most help on their writing, Marius has proposed the reopening of a very different center next year; regular Expos teachers will spend one hour per week, without additional pay, working probably in the basement of the Union.

Do you believe that the University should provide toilet paper to everyone in the College [at present upperclassmen in the River Houses are not supplied it]? What if it resulted in a $2 to $4 increase in each student's term bill?

Yes

Because Harvard purchases in large amounts, it would be able to buy toilet paper at wholesale prices or even less, while individual students must pay inflated Cambridge retail prices. Thus your two dollars buys more when you give it to the University to spend for you. Also, a $2-$4 increase in term bill will lose significance in the face of the seemingly inevitable $500 increases which roll along every year. Additionally, it is much more convenient to procure toilet paper from a House store-room than to have to run to a distant supermarket when one is in need. In the sake of equality, all students should receive the same services for the same fee.

No

Only in communal bathrooms where no one takes responsibility for restocking should toilet paper be freely distributed, and because of distribution problems the entire Yard should be included. Extension of service to the River Houses would cost $12,000-$19,000, or $2-$4 per student which would cost even those students already receiving free t.p. Also, students probably get better quality paper than Harvard buys.