Hear Them Out

BY REFUSING STUDENT REQUESTS for an open meeting to discuss Harvard's investment policy, a member of the seven-man Harvard Corporation last week went down on three counts. The rejection of student requests by member Andrew Heiskell could well have been designed as proof of the students' concerns. First, even a considerate and well-explained "no" would have been an example of the kind of communication requested by the student groups. The Corporation would have lost nothing by such a response, and both sides would have gained. The Corporation, however, not only refused to communicate, but did so in a non-communicative way.

Second, Heiskell's ill-considered rebuff preempted a constructive response on the part of the Corporation. And finally, his remark that the Corporation would not "meet with anybody who wants to meet" not only was an insult to the groups that requested a meeting--among them the Southern Africa Solidarity Committee, the Undergraduate Council, the Radcliffe Union of Students and the Endowment for Divestiture--but also indicates how little interest the Corporation has in input from the community.

Heiskell is entirely justified in declaring that the Corporation will not meet with any Tom, Dick or Harry who knocks on the door of 17 Quincy Street, but that comment is totally inappropriate in these circumstances. The student groups in question include the two recognized institutions of student government on campus. Moreover, the other groups involved have repeatedly demonstrated that they enjoy support from a significant portion of the community. If such a coalition does not even merit an audience with the Corporation, then we must assume no one does.

Further displaying his lack of awareness, Heiskell cited the incident at Memorial Hall during the 350th celebration--when protesters prevented 600 guests from attending a black tie dinner--as a justification for not meeting with students. He seemed to forget that the majority of protesters were alumni and Harvard union activists, not representatives of Harvard student groups. Heiskell's use of this example even undermined his own logic. The recent student letters represent the most respectful and non-confrontational gesture of communication the governors of Harvard's investment policy have received in recent years and are likely to see ever.

Heiskell claimed that holding an open meeting with concerned student groups would undermine the function of the Corporation, which is to run Harvard. It is condescending to students, however, to imply that the policy decisions made behind closed doors are, or ever could be, purely financial. Students have not asked to sit in on the Corporation's decision-making process, but merely to talk. That's a simple request.