Beyond the ACSR

LAST WEEK, the Advisory Committee on Shareholder Responsibility (ACSR) which makes nonbinding recommendations to the Corporation on its investment policy-held an open forum on University policy concerning investments in companies that do business with South Africa The now familiar spring ritual helped to educate students about the issues with a new twist-some members of the audience stepped up their call for the body to vote for divestiture, with the added demand that ACSR members resign in protest if the University did not been their recommendation.

But this year's meeting was another reminder of the limitations not only of forums but also of the ACSR itself. The meeting, attended by more than 150 heard emotional speeches both for and against divestiture, but many participants later said they thought the forum would have little impact on the committee members decisions Nor has the ACSR apparently had much impact on the Corporation's investment policy regarding South Africa.

A clear example of the limited function of the ACSR is the body's stance on the Sullivan Principles, a very limited code of ethics for companies doing business in South Africa.

Even after the ACSR took the unprecedented step last spring of recommending that the University hold companies in which it holds stock to the Sullivan Principles as a minimum standard, nine companies have failed to sign the code, have received an unsatisfactory rating as a signatory, or have failed to report its practices with respect to the principles. Of those companies, the Corporation has only singled out three for "intensive dialogue," despite President Bok's previous statement that the Corporation would support ACSR recommendations. As an advisory body, the ACSR is ultimately of limited importance.

Because the ACSR is currently the only organized forum for student input, we do not urge its members to resign, as some have recommended. The committee should be used to its utmost capacity as a means for change, despite intrinsic limitations. At the same time, however, activists must explore other means of protest.

Rather than focusing attention on the ACSR, saving protests for the spring to respond to ACSR votes, protest should be a year-long effort by the divestiture movement. Students should lobby the University's most influential body-the alumni. The focus of the divestiture movement must spread to encompass students and faculty at the graduate schools. Radcliffe students should protest that school's investment policy in companies that do business in South Africa, in hope that Radcliffe can set an example for Harvard.

Students should also support efforts such as the Enowment for Divestiture, protest marches and rallies for divestiture. It is up to students and the rest of the Harvard community to persuade the Corporation at last to take a moral stand for divestiture.