From Our Readers

To the Editors of The Crimson: I was somewhat surprised to read in Saturday morning's article on the divestiture referendum that "In a very limited sense, [the referendum is] a vote of confidence in the way Brian Offut has been leading the Council." Perhaps I did not make myself clear to the reporter when she called me shortly before two o'clock Saturday morning. Certainly the article did not make clear what we talked about. The article quotes only from the last part of my response to a very leading question from the reporter. Judging from the two quotes of mine that were chosen, the article was already written and its conclusions already drawn before I was even interviewed at two in the morning, five hours before the article appeared in print. Let me place my remarks in context.

It is obvious from the wording of the referendum that its subject is divestiture: "Harvard University ought to divest completely from any institution that does business in the Republic of South Africa." It is also to some extent a message to the Undergraduate Council, in that a second question instructs the Council to "support and encourage the majority view on the preceding question through appropriate means." Only in an extremely limited way does this referendum reflect on Brian Offutt's leadership, and then because that is how some of the members will interpret the results.

Two days ago, seventeen other council members and I signed a letter to our fellow members that explained why we were asking for this referendum. That letter explains exactly what this "vote of confidence" means. We have taken the issue of divestitute to a referendum, rather than to the Undergraduate Council itself, because so much deliberation there has lately been sidetracked in controversy over the political nature of student government.

Brian Offut and "the way [he] has been leading the Council" enter the picture because certain remarks made by him and his Vice-Chairperson, Steve Smith, which the letter quotes, have been taken by some students to encourage an "apolitical" approach to student government. As our letter explains, "We offer this referendum as a vote of confidence in the 'apolitical' approach to student government. We reject the view of student government that rejects issues of moral significance, or issues that inspire controversy, as foreign to the spirit in which the Council was created, and to the reasons for our continued existence." The referendum is not "a vote of confidence in Offut and Smith." Instead it may send a message to the Undergraduate Council about the "apolitical" approach that has been associated with them. Lately, whenever, "political" issues have been discussed on the floor, this apolitical view surfaces when someone suggests that our constituents elected us to improve the tangible quality of student life, not to address "issues of moral significance." We who have organized the referendum disagree with those who suggest this view. Now the only way to settle this disagreement is to put the question to our constituents.

This referendum is not a vote of confidence in Brian Offut. The more than seven hundred students who signed the petition on the referendum were interested in divestiture, not petty politicking. When the students of Harvard College go to the polls next week, they will be voting on divestiture and how their representatives ought to treat that issue. They will not be electing a Chairperson of the Undergraduate Council. When the members of the council meet on Sunday the ninth to begin the work of a new semester, we will judge the candidates on their qualifications, not their politics.

The real question will be, who is the best person for the job among the candidates who offer themselves? The result of the election will merely indicate who, in the opinion of his or her peer representatives, can best fufill the duties of the Chairpersonship. These other issues may have a bearing on the outcome, but that is for the individual member to decide.

I have been talking to Brian Offut since he read our letter, and he believes that his approach to student government has been misunderstood. He will make that case to the membership on election night, and I wll be listening with an open mind. I will listen too, along with the rest of the membership, to Melissa Lane, and to whoever else seeks office.

Let me write for a moment about these two principal "battlers for control of the Undergraduate Council," Melissa Lane and Brian Offut. I met both of them as freshmen, when they were candidates and I was director of elections. I have known and admired them both ever since. Brian and Melissa are both special friends, and I am glad that the Undergraduate Council has such an excellent choice of leadership. When this election is over, the student government will once again join ranks behind our elected leader, and return to the work for which the council was created: "to seek an active role in the establishment of University policies and priorities," "to represent [students'] views," "to promote student interest, and...to serve as a student forum for different points of view." Saturday's article paints a deceptive and slanted picture of the upcoming referendum and election. Brian R. Melendez '86