COLlMBIA UNIVERSITY COALITION FOR A FREE SOUTH AFRI CA
PRESS PACKET
April 12, 1985
Malcolm X Lounge, Hartley Hall, Columbia University
Instructions to members of the press:
The Press Office is located in Room SA in Hartley Hall. Please stop there first for information and clearance for all interviews with former fasters and Steering Committee members.
CONTENTS:
Press Release: April 12, 1985
Telegram to President Michael Sovern and the Columbia Board of Trustees (Demands of Blockaders)
Letter from the Coalition to the Trustees
Statement fronl the Blockaders
List of Endorsements of the Blockade
Texts of Telegrams by Bishop Tutu and Jesse Jackson
F'aculty Support Statements
Fact Sheet of Recent Events (two pages)
Summary of Disciplinary Proceedings Pending Against the Blockaders
Apartheid and Columbia fact Sheet
List of South African Related Investments Held by Columbia University Malcolm X Lounge, Hartley Hall, Columbia University Press office: 5A Hartley Hall, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027 Tel: 280-6536/7/8, 864-8461/8442
PRESS RELEASE
April 12, 1985
The ninth day of the student blockade in front of Hamilton Hall was marked by increased support from major political figures across the country and renewed legal maneuverings by the University administration on campus and in the courtroom. Students cheered as messages of support from Rev. Jesse Jackson, Mayor Marion Barry, Jr., Senator Gary Hart and Bishop Desmond Tutu were read. Downtown, University attorney Floyd Abrams argued that the temporary restraining order granted the students on Wednesday should be voided. State Supreme Court Justice Bruce Wright decided in favor of the students, ruling that the injunction was valid.
Undaunted by this new legal setback, the University administration, represented by Associate Dean of Columbia College Michael Rosenthal, tried a different tack. Flanked by an attorney and a delegation of security personnel, he approached the blockaders at 4: 20 Rvl. Rosenthal announced that, according to his interpretation of a quldote in bal New York Times .aLticle..n.,. the Hstudents' lawyers had oromLsed that anyone wou be a e to enter tlie DUllulng luroug tne -tront Qoor. -Wfien It Decame Clear that the Coalition's lawyer, C. Vernon Mason, had been misquoted, Rosenthal conferred with his lawyer, announced that the students had "been warned," turned, and left.
Tonight, students celebrated this week's legal and moral victories ata 'Divestment Blockade Fundraiser' dance on campus. Columbia University in the Cit~, of Ne.w York I Neu' rork. N. Y. 10027
COAL.ITION FOR A FREE SOUTH AFRICA
. alockade telephone access 280-6537/6538, 864-8461/8442 Coalition address: Malcolm· X Lounge, Hartley Hall, Columbia University
. - .... - ..... 1EXT OF TELEGRAM SENT TO PRESIDENr rvnCHAEL SOVERN AND TIlE COLl1v1BIA UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSrEES srATING OOAANDS OF TIlE BLOCKADERS OF HNv1ILTON HALL AT COLll\4BIA UNIVERSITY ON 8U'H)AY APRIL 7, 1985 -~----~-----~--~~~------~-~---~-~--~----~------~~ ------
Dear President Sovern/Board of Trustee Member:
The 400-member Coalition for a Free South Africa, comprised of Columbia University students., faculty, alumni, and staff -- seventy of whom have been fasting in some fonn for nearly two weeks -- are currently bl9ckading Hamilton Hall.
We are hereby -demanding that you immediately convene your ge"neral body to issue a written public policy statement of your intention to divest t~e $34 million that Columbia University invests in companies operating in South Africa, further stipulating that this policy be fully implemented within three years from the issuance of this statement. The blockade will not end until such a statement is "issued.
Another non-negotiable condition for ending the blockade is that Columbia University issue in writing an unconditional grant -of amnesty to all participants in the bloackade with an explicit pledge that no dIsciplInary or legal action will be taken against any of them at any futur~ time.
Sincerely Yours,
Columbia Coalition for a Free South Africa Columbia University in the Cit:. of Ne.\\' '{ork Neu' i\,ror,k N.. Y 100_') ,-.
COALITION FOR A FREE SOUTH AFRICA
April 5, 1985
Dear Trustee:
We, 400 student, faculty, staff, and alumni members of the Coalition for a Free South Africa, are blockading Hamilton Hall. This is a letter to explain why. We believe that Columbia's investments in South Africa support the apartheid system which has repeatedly shown an unwillingness to deal with peaceful black protest by any other means but brutal force. W~ are asking you, as a Trustee, to respond to the volatile situation in South Africa today, especially to the recent killings . numbering over forty in the last month. How long will Columbia's investment continue to legitimize this racist, state-sponsored violence?
In 1978, as leaders of an ethical educational institution,· you promised to divest all holdings in corporations which, "through act or omission," continue to support. apartheid and "manifest indifference" to its victims. Yet you continue to manage a portfolio which contains corporations that not only "manifest indifference" to suffering under apartheid, but substantially contribute to it. 111\1 is still supplying computers which keep track of blacks under the pass law system, Mobil is still providing oil to the South African military, and all companies are still obliged under the Key Points Act to offer their factories to the military in case of black unrest. In 1984, the Columbia University Senate found that "all foreign corporations are obliged to do business under the laws of apartheid and are therefore ineluctably part of the fabric of apartheid." In light of your' 1978 public promise to divest such corporations, we are asking you as Trustees, how many deaths until you fulfill your promise?
Columbia's tradition as a leading liberal and ethical institution brings us much pride and strength and we calion you to take the only possible path here to preserve the fine tradition we share: we are determined to stay until you divest.
The Members of the Coalition For a Free South Africa
Ene: (4) Financial Implications of Divestment South African Perpectives Apartheid and Columbia Columbia University in the Cit:. of Ne.w York I NeU'York, N.Y. 10027
COALITION FOR A FREE SOUTH AFRICA
Blockade telephone access 280-6537/6538, 864-8461/8442 Coalition address: Malcolm X Lounge, Hartley Hall, Columbia University
SfATEMENT FROM 1HE BLOCKADERS
Under the leadership of the Coalition for a Free South Africa, hundreds of Columbia University students, faculty, alumni and staff - a number of whom have recently ended their 15 day fast - continue to blockade the main entrance to Hamilton Hall, the main bUilding of Columbia College. They demand that the Trustees immediately convene to issue a written public policy statement of their intention to divest all
t their holdings in corporations that do business in South Africa , further stipulating that this policy be fully implemented within three years from the issuance of this statement. The blockade will not end until such a statement is issued•. Another non-negotiable condition for ending the blockade is that Columbia University issue in writing an unconditional grant of amne ty to all participants in the bloackade with an explicit pledge that no disciplinary or legal action will be taken against any of them at any future time.
There is a crisis in South Africa, which the Trustees can no longer turn their backs on. The apartheid system has repeatedly shown an unwillingness to deal with peaceful black protest by any other means but brutal force. We are asking the Trustees to respond to the volatile situation in South Africa today: there have been more than 40 government sanctioned killings in the last month.
In 1978, they promised to divest all holdings in corporations which, "through act or omission", support apartheid. Holdings in these corporations have yet to' be divested. In 1984, The Columbia University Senate found that "all foreign corporations are obliged to do business under the laws of apartheid and are therefore ineluctably part of the fabric of apartheid." In light of the 1978 Trustees' public promise to divest such corporations, we are asking the Trustees, "How many deaths until you fulfill your promise?" Columbia University in the Cit:. of Ne.w York I New York, N. Y. 10027
COALITION FOR A. FREE SOUTH AFRICA
LISf OF ENDORSEN1ENfS
-Blockade telephone access 280-6537/6538, 864-8461/8442 Coalition address: Malcolm X Lounge, Hartley Hall, Columbia University
The following is a partial list of endorsements from individuals and groups supporting the Coalition for a Free South Africa Hamilton Hall blockade:
African National Congress of South Africa American Committee on Africa . Art Against Apartheid Shirley Chisholm C.I.S.P.E.S. Herbert Daughtery David Dinkins District 65, V.A.W. Herman 'Denny' Farrell Carolyn Forche Victor Gotbaum Harvard Law Coalition for Divestment Nat Hentoff Abbie Hoffman International Socialists' Organization Judy Gorman Jacobs Florence Kennedy Local 420, A.F.S.C.M.E. AFL-CIO Local 1199, Health & Hospital Workers Nonnan Mailer Arthur Miller Kate Millet N.O.W. NYS Chapter Pres. (Noreen Connell) Paul Robeson, Jr. Randall Robinson (Free South Africa) Rutgers College Divestment Group Pete Seeger William Styron U-2 (personal appearance by Bono) Special Committee on Apartheid US Students' Association Univ. of Iowa Coalition Against Apartheid Kurt Vonnegut Peter Yarrow (Peter, Paul and Mary)
And students at S.U.N. Y. Purchase, University of Colorado at Boulder, University of California at Berkeley t Hunter College, Cornell Medical School and The New Scool for Social Research. PRESS RELEASE APRIL 12, 1985
TEXTS OF MESSAGES FROM BISHOP TUfU AND
REV. JESSE JACKSON
We salute your outstanding commitment to struggle for justice and peace in South Africa. We seek to change the vicious unjust system peacefully and welcome your effort to have economic decision be based on moral principle. Would be distressed if your campaign degenerated into violenc.e between yourselves and police or yourself and fellow students. God's richest blessings to you all. Much love, Bishop Desmond Tutu
Brothers and sisters, I have been working very hard to alter my schedule to alter my seRedu~ so that I might come to personally express my heartfelt support and affirmation of your witness. I have not yet been able to get to New York, but wanted to send this message to let you know that I'm thinking of you, you are in my prayers and I \vish you well in your courageous stand against apartheid. There can be no question that [corporate] investment in South Africa gives economic stabliity and international prestige to that illegal regime. That is why your action against investment is so crucial to the freedom struggle in South Africa. In the spirit of Bishop Desmond Tutu, for whom Columbia have had high praise, hope that the University through its president and board of trustees will have the wisdom and sense of solidarity to hear your appeal. Keep strong--God is on your side. Yours in peace and freedom, Reverend Jesse Jackson FACULTY SUPPORT
Blockade telephone access 280-6537/6538, 864-8461} 442 Coalition address: Malcolm X Lounge, Hartley Hall, Columbia University
A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE FACULTY COMv1ITIEE AGAlNSf APARTHEID April 9, 1985 - 1:00pm 200 faculty and TA's in attendance
BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
'vVhereas the action at Hamilton Hall has precipitated a vital debate within the university community, no coercion, either be police force or by disciplinary action should be used by the university to end this action. ' Rather, negotiation and debate only should be used within the university community to resolve the issue of divestment. Any other recourse would poison the academic environment.
BE IT RESOLVED THAT;
We, Faculty, Teaching Assistants and Administrators, calIon the Trustees of Columbia University to divest stocks in companies with holdings in South Africa Columbia University in the Cit:. of Ne.w York I New York. N.Y. 10027
COALITION FOR A FR'EE SOUTH AFRICA
Blockade telephone acces 280-6537/6538, 864-8461/8442 Coalition address: Malcolm X Lounge, Hartley Hall, Columbia University FACT SHEET RELATING TO THE BLOCKAIE OF HAMILTON HALL (compiled by Columbia University Faculty)
1978 Trustees of the University accepted the majority report of the Senate Committee, and issued a six-part Statement of Principles that declared the University's intention to divest based on "its concern for the liberties and equal employment opportunities, of non-whites in South Africa." Columbia divested $2. 7 million from banks with financial connections to South Africa.
The Report of the Ad-Hoc Committee on Investments in Companies with Operations in South Africa, issued on November 30, 1984, and widely known as "the Pollack Report", concludes that, "Thus in 1978 the Trustees of the University, led by their Chainnan Arthur Krim, took the dramatic step of accepting a set of ethical restraInts as part of a prudent fiduciary investment policy."
1981 Columbia University's Coalition for a Free South Africa, a multiracial organization, was founded; its main objectives were to educate, and to mobilIze opposition to apartheid.
1983 March 25: A resolution was introduced and unanimously passed urging Columbia's Trustees to "develop and implement a specific plan for the divestment of all its holding in corporations which have operations in South Africa."
June: In reply, the Trustees issued a report asserting that investment rather than divestment of all relevant securities, was the best policy for the University. This report interpreted the original six principles as supporting investment under specified conditions.
September: The Ad-Hoc Committee on Investments in Companies with Operations in South Africa, called "the Pollack Committee", was fonned.
1984 April-May: The Pollack Committee recommended a temporary freeze.
November 30: The Pollack Committee recommended: 1) the University convert its temporary "freeze" on investments into a continuing policy; 2) the Trustees take that lead in organizing other universities and similar institutions for a coordinated policy against apartheid; 3) the President and Trustees establish a permanent, broad-based committee to report regularly on University policy toward South Africa, including investment in companies operating in South Africa and the use of shareholder interests against apartheid; 4) the University initiate a major program, supported by substantial resources, to study the political and social problems of southern Africa and promote education for change there. The Senate approved the report in a 43-13 vote.
CONflNUED PAGE TWO (CONTINUED)
FACf SHEET RElATING TO 11iE BLOCKADE OF HAMILTON HALL (complIed by Columbia University Faculty)
1985 March 25: Seven members of the Coalition began a fast in protest of the University's South Afric~-related investments.
April 4: The Coalition plus 100-200 students blockaded Hamilton Hall and chained closed its front doors; entrance was possible only by tunnel.
April 5: Robert Gaillione issued Columbia University's statement to the demonstrators in which he cited the students violation of the Rules of University Conduct and violation of the civil and criminal laws of the State of New York.
April 7: The Coalition issued the following statement:
We are hereby demanding that you immediately. convene your general body to issue a written public policy statement of your intention to divest the $34 million that Columbia University invests in .companies operating in South Africa, further stipulating that this policy be fully implemented within three years from the issuance of this statement. The blockade will not end until such a sstatement is issued.
Another non-negotiable condition for ending the blockade is that Colulmbia University issue in writing an unconditional grant of amnesty to all participants in the blockade with an explicit pledge that no disciplinary or legal action will be taken against any of them at any future time.
New York State Supreme Court 1ustice Herbert Baer, Jr. granted Columbia a temporary restraining order instructing those blockading hamilton hall to leave or face contempt of court charges. President Sovern issued a letter to the Columbia community.
April 8: President Sovern met with the fasters In the early evening, after which they ended their fast. The blockade continued.
* * * **
A primary source of conflict seems to lie in the interpretation of the 1978 principles. The Trustees interpret these as justification for the continued investment. The Coalition interprets them as a promise to divest all holding in corporations which, "through act or omission," support apartheid. Columbia Universitv in the Cit" of New York I New '{ork, N. Y. 10027
COALITION FOR A FREE SOUTH AFRICA
Blockade telephone access 280-6537/6538, 864-8461/8442 Coalition address: Malcolm X Lounge, Hartley Hall·, Columbia University
Summary of Disciplinary and Legal Actions Taken by Columbia University Against the Members of the Coalition for a Free South Africa, with a summary of the Coalition's response
Thus far, Columbia University has take.n the following disciplinary actions:
* Sunday evening, Presidential delegate to the University Committee on Rules and Regulations Robert Gallione read a University statement which said that the protesters were in violation of University Rules of Conduct and New York Civil Codes. He then passed out copies of the Temporary Restraining Order (T.R. O. ) obtained by the University Sunday afternoon. Monday morning, Gallione returned to read the actual T.R. O. The T.R. o. said the the protesters are now in violation of State and Civil Codes prohibiting free access to public buildings; therefore, the blockaders are subject to state and city penalties.
* The administration distributed letters requesting students to appear before a disciplinary committee on the grounds that they have violated sections 413(7), (8 ), (12 ), (13 ), (14), (18 ), (19 ), and (20 ) of the Rules of University Conduct. * Those who received letters were identified by security cameras or University sources.
The Coalition for a Free South Africa has responded:
with a form letter to the administration (specifically Mr. Michael Mooney) stating the Coalition members' willingness to comply with University procedure after obtaining proper legal counsel. * On Wednesday evening The Coalition obtained aT. R. O. from New York State Supreme Court Justice Bruce Wright enjoining the University from "taking any police action against the students corrently peacefully and non-violently sitting on the steps of Hamilton Hall," pending a hearing scheduled for Monday, April 15. At least until then, it is official--
"THE BLOCKADE IS LEGAL n SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ------x RUSSELL TAYLOR and LORAINE HAR RISON, et al., TRIAL TERM, PART XX Plaintiffs, Index No. 8493 1985 -against-
THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA ONIVERSITY,
Defendants '. ------x
BRUCE McM. WRIGHT, J.
It is extremely difficult to know how to entitle this pur ported ction. Young lawyers for Columbia University'students have
argued with zea 1 ~nd passion that the demon,strations of their student
clients must continue, ·unaeterred by the threat of arrest, as·they de- rnand that Columbia University '''s investments in South Africa be with-
drawn. Absent withdrawal, the students appear to be saying, they are attending a university that impliedly approves the apartheid that the South Af·rican government venerates. Finding such a course offensive to the dignity of mankind 'and the morality of every civilized ethic, counsel for the students have procured an order. that restrains the de fendan~s from "Enforcing improperly" a restraining ord~r granted by
Mr. Justice Harold Baer, Jr., and from acting against the peaceful congregating and sitting-in on'the exterior steps of Hamilton Hall, so long as the students do not disrupt, interfere, block or hinder the activities of the defendants, the faculty or administrators of the University.
Invoked during arguments heard this day, were the ghost of Eleanor Burnpurs and the spirit·of Nelson Mandela. Should the students be enjoined, it was said, a blood bath might follow, with allies from Harlem corning to the campus to dramatize their discontent, both with . South Africa and Columbia's attributed identification with that land of black trag dy and official racist doctrine. The dismissal f an indictment gainst a police officer who, it was said, shot the hand off of Eleanor Bumpurs and then fatally placed a bullet in her breast, has infuriated the Harlem community. Vacating an order of restraint against the defendants and, indirectly, the police, would be the-flint that would spark riot, d truction and bloodletting.
Despite these dramatic and alarmist protestations, the'de- fendants have moved to vacate the order of April 10th, 1985. Careful analysis of that order reveals· that it is more symbolic than anything else and only restrains the defendants from impropriety, conduct that . they WQutd be bound to honor in any event.
Defendants have a firm legal basis for their application to vacate the order. Apparently, the young plaintiffs were so preoccu- pied with placing the Trustees on the defensive, while airing their considerable grievances against South Africa, that they neglected to serve a summons and they thus procured an order in a non-action. During the hearing on the morning of Jpril 12th, they argued that
-~- process was then being prepared and would be served within the hour. At 4:45 P. M., within a different hour, proof of service of a sum mons and ccmplaint was presented, along with proof of the purchase of an index number.
Plaintiffs argue that, with the service of process, their order to show cause with its restraining order is no longer a judicial orphan and nunc pro tunc· propriety is now enjoyed b the restraining order. The hot purs~it of procedural propriety almost created the convolutions of a labyrinth of Daedalus-like proportions, without the magic of an Ariadne's thread. still, there are some circumstances under which an order issued prior to commencement of an action may be recognized as having standing. The general rule is that where an ac tion has not yet been commenced, and a temporary restraining order has been signed, propriety is established if process is served prior to th~ return date of the order. See, 'for-example, the discussion of this kind of contretemps by David U. Siegel, New York Practice, ch. 12,
§ 330, under the short title, "Temporary Restraining Order."
The non-action order, then, is now attached to the umbilical of a summons and complaint.. Both order and process exist. Although the latter came a bit after the former, there is no prejudicial ele ment of surprise.
The technical and procedural difficulty with the restraining order, as pointed out by the defendants as energizing their oral ap-
-3-. plication to have the restraining order v~cated, has now been cured. Thus eliminated are the arguments-in-chief urged upon the court for vacatur.
The application is denied.
Dated: April 13, 1985.
J. s. C.