 

 

Remember KSU

Some 5,000 demonstrators converged on Kent State
University last Saturday to protest, among other things, the
building of a gymnasium on Blanket Hill, where four
students were killed by national guardsrnen on May 4, 1970.

The demonstrators sought to prevent the construction of
the gym and to establish a memorial for the dead students.
They also hoped to gain acknowledgement from university
officials that injustice had been done on that day in 1970.
The attitude of most demonstrators was shown clearly in the
slogan painted on several campus buildings: “We will never
forget and never forgive."

UNQUESTIONABLY, we must never forget. For some,
the Kent State incident will be remembered as the symbol of
the confused, alienated youth and oppressive establishment
that marked the 1960's. For others, it will be remembered as
depicting how easily noble, yet anti»systemic protests can go
wrong. However we remember the incident, the important
point is that we remember it. It would be a pity to overlook
the incidents many lessons.

. The gym should not be built on Blanket Hill. Rather, a
permanent memorial should be established, either by leaving
the hill as an open area, naming unnamed buildings after the
dead students or both. A memorial will help us remember.

WE FEEL, however, that refusing to forgive is not the
best policy. To be sure, the four students were murdered and
the guardsmerl who fired shots deserve to be brought to trial
and punished, And if officers gave orders to fire, then they,
too, deserve to be tried and punished. It would be a mockery
of our law to do otherwise. These people do not deserve
forgiveness from the courts or ourselves, at least not until
they have been punished, and maybe not even then.

Yet, it is far too easy to permanently condemn the entire
national guard, the Kent State administration, the Ohio
state government and even the entire establishment because
of the incident. Granted, they did attempt, and are still
attempting, to minimize the injustices done on May 4, 1970.
They arewrong to do so, but they, as whole entities, killed no
one and therefore deserve longer thought about whether to
forgive or condemn than the individuals responsible deserve.
The major question here is: Who determines what acts are so
wrong that they deserve never to be forgiyen?

We do not pretend to know. We do say that people should
be cautious and considerate before permanently condemning
these establishment actors. Perhaps future investigation will
show these actors to be guilty of some behavior not worth
forgiving. But we think that by almost any reasonable,
considerate standard, condemnation of all of these actors
permanently is not mandated. More practically, refusal to
forgive is counterproductive to any attempts to deal with

these actors.
WE DO NOT mean that these establishment actors should

be viewed with affection or complacency. Rather, they
should be viewed with a skeptical, probing mind that never
forgets the May 4, 1970 example of the potential oppression
of which these actors are capable.

Forgiving by demonstrators for the confrontation is an
uneasily achieved step that will help create a two-way,
possibly workable relationship between students and ad-
ministrators at the University. We believe, therefore, that
forgiveness is not appropriate unless ”the other side” is
willing to develop this relationship by admitting its
lmistakes. '

 

 

 

The Scarlet & Black

second class posiage paid at Grlnrleli, la, 50m

 

Ednor
Associate Editor
News Ediipr
Feature Edivor
shuns Ediior
enuvodraphy Ed-ior
copy Ednor
Advcrvismg Manager
circulzviun Manager
eusincss Manager
Faculty Advisur

Tom Arenberg
Elaine Ashbaugn
eob Mulchcll
Kaihy Vuoer
Bob Meyer
chris Lower
John sirauss
sue Welichko
Carl Oppedahl
van rsagaris
William ocmmw

Reporters
, Foern Brou her, pr i

Cleland, Justine oahcriy. Eileen Deegan, AnngDesmoArib, 3.1536555; Alter":
AEAWeri, Howard Frltx, Tyrone Glbbs, Jim Hansen. Kcnnclh Johnsion
Marikav Kameclura, Thomas Kerr, Catherine Koranda, Rod Low Johri
e an'del, Chris Msrler, Mark Mayer, Tim obermillcr. Judy Packer, Tom
an as, stld PerklrlsDrl, Janet Pope, cohn sacks, John shumwav, Jim

Slrickier David Teasdale Christa
i , pher The , Tr
Wesi, Jeremiah Whi'iev, Kaihy Wllll’lOlte. Q BCEY IDmaShDOli Thﬂﬂda

Carioumsvs
Keri Krimsicin, David TeesoalE, aoih Wiley

Columnists
Wlll Collins, Vlvki Fenlamm, obug Schultz,
elll Kowuiski. eruce welndruch.

enoiugrapncrs

Farron eruughcr. Karl Duksteirl, Howard Fri
Davld Teesdaie I 1' Rad Low'

Daniel alum. Julianne Erand

Leah Soldier, Michelle slacev,

Sieve Sllberberg,

 

Published weekly excepl during holidays and vacaiian periods by Grinnell
College Sludenl Puphcaiions and Radio Commmee, Grl'rlnell, Iowa, sum.

 

 

 

 

 

 

”our; not, ultimo/A,
1&6in Us hilt h‘ 3221101
ms r 00 ‘ a

tooth0 k ”50‘ a

x539? 7

mantis

Alumni reveals previous access to stock portfolio

To the editor: It was with great
interest that I read the articles
about the possible uses of Grin»
hell’s Stock portfolio in relation to
South Africa. I am surprised,
however, at the ”no sunlight"
policy, as well as President Tun
ner’s willingness to consider proxy
resolutions, in View of events which
took place in 1972.

In May 1972, Grinnellians, ape
palled by the Vietnam War, held
mass meetings in Herrick Chapel.
While most participants seemed
determined to hold a candlelight
protest march through Grinnell, I
proposed lhal the College as an
institution use its stock holdings to
exert financial pressure on core
poratlons supporting the war.

Neither the students nor the
administration agreed. President
Leggctt refused to take an in-
stllutional stand against the war,
although expressing personal
opposition.

Two days later another student,
T. Keith Liggett, and I wont to the
Treasurer of the College (then Mr.
Donald Lambie) and asked to see
the stock portfolio. Apparently, the
“no sunlight” policy was not yet in
effect. Lambie did not hesitate to
let us see the portfolio although
asking why we wanted to see it,

We explained our interest in
learning what stocks Grinnell
controlled in industries involved in
the production of so-called
inhumane weaponryiweapons
designed to maim and mutilate and
Erlelate permanent damage, but not

I

From the portfolio it was dif-
iicult to determine exactly how
much Stock Grinnell had in any
particular industry. The portfolio
was broken down into the various
endowments—each with its own

 

individual lists of stocks. No list
stated the full number of stocks
Grinnell had in any particular
industry. The most we could
determine was that it did have
stock in industries which in-
terested us, the amount not being
our concern at that moment.

After getting this information,
we did nothing. We did not need to.
The next day I received a call from
President Leggett’s office
requesting that 1 meet with him,
Leggett arranged for me to talk
long distance to Mr. Warren E.
Buffett, a member of the Trustees
and the man in control of Grinnell's
investments.

I asked Buffetl questions about
the stocks and about Grinnell's
handling of proxy resolutions. He
considered resolutions routine,
handled by the college’s proxy at
stockholders meetings. Asked
about the college’s response when
a resolution had been sponsored at
Honeywell to cease production of
particular ”inhumane" weapons.
he informed me that he had not
dealt with [hat issue personally,
but assumed that the vote had been
to continue production as a means
toward maximization of profits. I
asked him what course the college
would take in the future and he
invited me to meet with the Board

of Trustees in'June.
Liggett and i met with the

Executive Committee of the
Trustees one week into summer
vacation. We encouraged the
members to propose proxy
resolutions opposed to the
production of “inhumane” war
material to Various industries. The
Committee conceded nothing.
(They did inform us, however, that
they had previously divested the
College of all Dow chemical stock

to avoid any potential controversy
over Dow‘s production of napalm.
They stressed that this was a
practical step to avoid con-
frontatinn, and was not
humanistically oriented.)

The Committee’s primary
concern was the economic
solvency of the College and that
they represented the ad-
ministration, faculty, alumni, and
students. They would not take
action without concensus input
from all such sources, effectively
disarming us for the summer since
no students remained on campus.
In the fall apathy and academics
killed the issue.

That the college does not wish to
reveal its stock holdings has no
“legalrpolitical basis,” unless
determined in the last five years.
Lambie had no standing orders to
refer to when I asked to see the
portfolio. He followed his instinct
that nothing could come of it. He
was proven right, but not before
other administrators became
involved. It is more Credible that
the ”no sunshine" policy was
devised after this incident in 1972 to
prevent future surprises.

President Turner’s decision to
ask the Board if they would “favor
a proxy resolution" seems rather
more idealistic than practical,
since no definite proxy resolution,
list of industries, or list of sup-
porters Within the Grinnell com-
munity has been drawn up in a
serious attempt to overwhelm the
Board’s traditional fiscal con-
servatism. From past experience,
I would not expect the Board to
take any action at all without some
indication of college sentiment—
administration, faculty, student
and alumni. Tom Mill, ‘73

Mandate compliance with UN sanctions, withdrawal

To the editor: The position taken
by [he S & B in last week's editorial
regarding Grinnell’s South African
investments ls totally unac-
ceptable and could only result from
incredible naivete and lack of
understanding of conditions in
Anzania (South Alrica).

To begin with. the s h n
misrepresented Jon Neiderbach’s
and my position regarding
divestiture We are calling [or
Grinnell to support or mitiatc
stockholders’ resolutions man-
dating immediate corporate
compliance with United Nations
economic sanctions and an imr
mediate end to all busmess tranr
sactions in and with South Africa,
Only if these resolutions fail do we
advocate divestiture,

THE S «if ll believes that
divestiture Will not strongly affect
offending corporations since the
stock would be quickly l'epurr
chased. This argumcnt attempts in
evade the responsibility Grlnnell
must share for corporate come
plicity with and support of upup
lhcirl.

In u desperate attempt to
legitimlzc its position, the s n n
has rcscrlcd lo fhe pipedrcam lhal
U. s. corporations are opposed to
apartheud. This dream no doubz
stems from lhc joint pledge of 12
U.S. corporations to fight bias
lhrough programs such as none
segregation. equal pay for equal
work, and equal opportunity for

 

advancement, While this sounds
quite progressive on aper, the
slightest scratching elow lhe
surface reveals this pledge to be a
hypocritical farce. First, only 12
out of 350 US. corporations doing
business in Anzanla signed the
pledge. Second. most U.S.in-
veslments are capitaHntensive
rather than labor-intensive so that
any reforms would affect only an
insignificant number of blacks
The reforms themselves are mi
significant smce they do ncf in
clude the right of black South
Africans to organize or participate
in political activity. Finally, and
most important, goals such as
equal pay for equal work and equal
opportunity are irrelevant and
unobtainable since South African
law prohibits mcsl cases of equal
work by allowing blacks to hold
only menial pdsuions.

U.S. busi is not and never
will be a progressive force in
Anzama but is u regressive force
(hat upholds and profits from the
nparlhcld stalus quo. By lore
bidding black unions, apartheid
keeps wages of a minimum~80 per
cent of South African blacks live
below the poverty level—which
maxilnlzcs profits for foreign
invcslors. U.S. investments,
concentrated in key sectors of the
cconomy m in n and strengthen
tthouthA dnccnnomythcrcby
strengthening apartheid. Cor-
porations such as IBM, Callex, and
Ford. which is often cited for its

 

“progressive” South African
policy. supply \lital products and
services to the South African police
and military. For example, IBM
manufactures the passbooks that
all adult blacks must carry at all
times or be subject to arrest and
provides the computer technology
needed to run this system.

The repugnant, racist South
African regime must be opposed on
all fronts. Fundamental change,
not insignificant reform, is
needed, The hard-line stand of the
Nationalist Party and Prime
Minister Vorster Show that this can
be achieved only by civil war. The
presence of U. investments in
creases the likelihood of U.S. ins
tervention m a civil war to protect
fhcse investments Us corporate
withdrawal would be a Critical
economic, political. and
psychological setback for the South
African gcxcmmcnl and could
greatly aid lhc Anzaman liberation
movements,

ll llle corp 'allons cannot be
forced lo \i-llhdruw from Anzanla,
at least let us no longer accept
blood stained money but rid our»
Selves of all South African me
vcslmenls and place ourselves
squarely on the side of liberation
and majority rule. .lhn Stuart

Editor's note: Regarding reader
Stuart‘s first point, Jon Ncirler-
bucll, “ho outlined for the 584]} [he
gonls of the students' inquiry,
explicitly stated that divestiture
was the top priority.

 

