Bok Endorses Measures To Pressure South Africa

President Bok, in a letter sent yesterday to Senator Edward M. Kennedy '54 (D-Mass). endorsed legislation which would impose economic sanctions on the white minority ruled South African government.

Bok, who said yesterday that the letter represented his personal views and not those of the University, wrote that the recent increase in violence and reprevision of the Black and colored population of South Africa "should inspire our government to communicate our opposition to apartheid more convincingly to the South African people."

"In view of these severe in justices," Bok wrote. "I believe that efforts by shareholders and other interested private individuals will not suffice Instead, circumstances require a more powerful expression of our national concern."

Kennedy's bill, called the Anti-Apartheid Act of 1985, would prohibit any new U.S. corporate investment in South Africa, stop bank loans to the South African government, half the importation of that country's leruggerand gold coins into the U.S. and prohibit American sales of computers to the South African government.

The release of the letter, dated April 2, comes during a week filled with protests calling on Harvard to divest of stock in companies with South African operations. The University has long held that complete divestment is ineffective as a method to fight South African's legal segregation of its Black majority population.

This week's demonstrations include a Thursday rally featuring the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson and other activists. They argue that Harvard must lead the national fight against apartheid in South Africa by completely divesting of stock in companies affiliated with the controversial nation.

Protesters throughout this week have picketed Bok's Massachusetts Hall office and indicated plans to disrupt the president's daily "business" following Jackson's speech. (See story below)

Members of the Law School Divestment Committee, organizers of the Mass hall protests, charged last night that the release of Bok's letter during the demonstrations "is not a coincidence."

But University officials yesterday denied that the letter to Kennedy was released to either bolster Bok's image or insure that his views are known during the protest activity.

The release of the letter "was not timed to affect the events of this week," said John Shattuck, the University's vice president for government and community affairs, who directs Harvard's public relations efforts.

The letter which Bok sent yesterday was a response to a request from Kennedy for comment on his proposed bill, which as Senate committee is expected to begin debate on later this month a Kennedy aide said yesterday.

Bok, Not Harvard

In an interview yesterday, Bok said that despite his personal views Harvard--which has $565 million invested in companies that do business in South Africa will not take any official position on a political issue unless it directly affects Harvard. Bok has pointed to financial aid as one issue diversing institutional lobbying efforts.

When Harvard is nor directly affected, as in the case of the Kennedy bill, position statements should be left to individuals, Bok added.

Harvard's stated policy for dealing with South African-involved companies does not explicitly include all of Kennedy's recommendations, but Bok said that Harvard is either investigating or already encourages companies to adopt those measures which Kennedy has espoused.

He said that Harvard does not encourage through its investments any activity that Kennedy's proposal would restrict. Therefore, Bok added, his personal endorsement of Kennedy's bill does not contradict University policy.

The president said in the interview that he has considered since last fall taking some personal action to support legislation on South Africa-Bok added that as a university. Harvard has done what it can to aid the oppressed in South Africa, through dialogue with companies and programs to help educate Black South Africans.

He said, however, "Activities of private institutions must be supplemented by national action."

Gregory B. Craig '67, a Kennedy foreign policy adviser, said that the Senator introduced and sought comment on his bill following a visit to South Africa earlier this year. In addition to Book and other university presidents, Craig said, comments were solicited from "prominent but unvocal" experts such as bankers, lawyers, and labor leaders.

Craig said Kennedy often seeks comment from experts before introducing major pieces of legislation.

Kennedy would not comment on Bok's letter, which Craig said has not yet been received in Washington. But Craig said views such as Bok's will be useful in Kennedy's battle against Reagan supporters in Congress, who oppose the imposition of sanctions on South Africa in favor of "constructive engagement."

Craig said Senate sub-committee hearings on the bill will be held April 16 and 25, but predicted the bill will not reach the Senate floor before this fall because of expected opposition from Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole (R-Kan.), an ardent Reagan supporter.

Student activists affiliated with the Southern Africa Solidarity Committee and the Law School Divestment Committee last night issued a statement in response to Bok's letter, praising the president for his support of Kennedy's bill but criticizing Bok's reluctance to allow Harvard to enter the political realm.

The student statement, which call Bok's letter a victory for campus activist groups, says that Bok's criticims of Reagan's policy "constructive engagement" is hypocritical. The students cited Bok's criticism of the Administration's "tacit acquiescence in a status quo which offends our most precious ideas," charging that this position could equally apply to Harvard's reluctance to completely divest.

The statement calls on Bok to stop "making' paternalistic judgements about Harvard's own contribution" to the fight against apartheid, and to listen to Black South African calls for divestment