Students Protest Investment in Apartheid South Africa

Between erecting a shantytown in Harvard Yard and disrupting a South African officials speech in the Science Center, anti-apartheid activists at Harvard in the late 1980s pressured the University to fully divest from companies with ties to South Africa.

Even after Harvard tried to placate critics with a policy of selective divestment, student activists continued to protest any investment in South Africa.

Activist pressure played a key role in pushing the University to reduce its South African holdings significantly, ultimately leading to a decrease of $230 million in South Africa-based holdings between June 1986 and January 1987.

Although Harvard never did fully divest from South Africa, 25 years later the student participants look back proudly on the small role they played in the downfall of the apartheid regime.

THE SPIRIT OF THE TIMES

South Africas system of apartheid was first instituted after World War II, and worldwide opposition to the system of forced racial segregation developed quickly.

In the late 1970s, a significant movement to divest from South Africa began. It aimed to use economic isolation to pressure the apartheid government to change its policies.

As the movement spread throughout the United States, Harvard resisted calls to withdraw its investments and the original movement eventually lost momentum.

However, Harvard activists in the late 1980s were reinvigorated by Jesse Jacksons visit in April of 1985.

In front of thousands of Harvard students and onlookers, Jackson denounced apartheid and urged students to choose the moral high road, according to a 1985 Crimson article.

More:

Students Protest Investment in Apartheid South Africa

Related Post

May 25, 2012  Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Apartheid |

Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
    •