Why Senior Gift PLUS Adds Up

Every day, we are presented with hundreds of worthy causes. Over the course of four years, some of us have become desensitized by the abundance of such causes. Last Tuesday, we, like many members of the senior class, read about the doubling of Harvard’s investments in PetroChina. After being challenged to think critically about the meaning of the Senior Gift, we felt compelled to act. For us, this campaign is about the genocide in Sudan and what we as students can do to affect change. This is not a question of social policy or service; it is a question of human life. Hundreds of thousands are already dead.

Senior Gift PLUS (SGP) works to ensure that our contributions to Harvard realize their full symbolic potential. Harvard is currently invested in companies that help underwrite the ongoing genocide in Sudan. SGP holds Harvard accountable for its complicit support of the Sudanese government and guarantees that Harvard’s investments do not strengthen Harvard’s financial stability at the expense of its fundamental principles.

For undergraduates, SGP is a rare opportunity to take a united stand with the potential of being heard. The Senior Gift signifies seniors’ transition from students to alumni—financial stakeholders in the University. It indicates our level of satisfaction with the institution and our future support. If the Senior Gift has a lower-than-projected participation rate, Harvard’s alumni will want to know why. Our discontent with Harvard’s current investments will force alumni to reevaluate their contributions to a Harvard that invests in companies financing genocide. We are confident that Harvard would divest its $4 million long before it comes to that.

Just as participation in the Senior Gift signifies student confidence in Harvard, SGP indicates to our community and to the world that we value human life, and positively contributes back to Harvard. Upon Harvard’s divestment from PetroChina, all SGP funds will be contributed in their entirety to the Senior Gift. If, however the University fails to divest, we will contribute to Harvard’s Carr Center for Human Rights—an example of one part of the University that is working to end genocide. To be sure, giving to worthy organizations working directly in the Sudan is not mutually exclusive with SGP; we encourage students to donate to Doctors Without Borders from our website. However, donating to these organizations aids the victims, but does little to stop a genocidal regime. Our message is that we cannot in good conscious give a gift given the implications of Harvard’s currents investments.

SGP does not stem from a sentiment of general discontent with Harvard. It is our education that compels us to act. We are turning the outstanding education we have received from Harvard College towards an effective and meaningful solution. If we want our Senior Gift to remain true to its intentions we must help make Harvard live up to the high standard it has already set for itself.

Some have argued that it is inappropriate to force a choice between the good of the Senior Gift and the good of ending genocide. We submit that it is entirely appropriate because the reputation of Harvard University cannot be separated from the actions of its constituent parts.

We realize that many students are concerned that our efforts will hurt financial aid for future students. However, despite its lofty language, the traditional Senior Gift does not directly improve financial aid. Harvard is 100 percent need-blind and in competition with other top schools for the country’s brightest students—future generations will receive aid in accordance with standing policy regardless of the Senior Gift.

Another common criticism is that we are setting a terrible precedent for future years. But the reality is that every year someone boycotts, protests, or otherwise maligns the Senior Gift, usually unsuccessfully. This year is different for two reasons. First, genocide is hardly the “liberal cause of the day.” We trust that Harvard-educated seniors are capable of weighing the choices and making the right decision in any given year. Second, we are seeking to align the goals of the Senior Gift—educating seniors about its financial needs and demonstrating our true satisfaction with the institution—with the goal of holding our community accountable for its actions.

Finally, in response to the contention that we have created division, we contend that we are expressing the legitimate voice of many seniors. We have never meant to insinuate that supporting the traditional Senior Gift is supporting genocide. We have instead underlined that by doubling its holdings in PetroChina, Harvard insinuates that we are not concerned about genocide.

Fortunately, the times that our generation will confront the horrors are rare. This is a chance for our class to take a strong and clear stance on Harvard’s immoral investment practices. To the idealists: there will never be a perfect moment nor a perfect movement. To the skeptics: the paralysis of analysis is dangerous. To those who are apathetic: past inaction earlier does not justify inaction now. We now have the opportunity in this specific moment to put into action the theories we have scrutinized for the past four years, to actively realize our humanitarian responsibility. We acknowledge that with every action comes a risk. We must learn from the lessons of Rwanda. We know the severity of the situation in Sudan, and we know what the outcome will be if we fail to act.

Victor O. Amoo ’05 is an Economics and African Studies concentrator in Eliot House. Jane Kim ’05 is a Social Studies concentrator in Adams House. Both are members of the Senior Gift PLUS initiative.