No, Republicans weren't "for" apartheid

The recent events in South Africa surrounding the passing of Nelson Mandela reminded me of an event from my days at Occidental College in the 1980s.
At the time, Mandela was still in prison and apartheid still ruled South Africa.  Many colleges debated the idea of "divestment": having their endowments sell off any investments in companies that did business in South Africa.  At Occidental this was a hot topic. 
The campus anti-apartheid activists planned to hold a rally in the Quad.  One night I got a call in my dorm from one of the event organizers asking me if I would speak at the rally.  I was  known as one of the active Republicans on campus (I think there were six of us). This earnest organizer assured me that they wanted to allow the "opposing viewpoint" to be heard.
I asked him if he thought that meant I was going to speak in support of apartheid? An awkward silence followed which said to me that was exactly what he thought I was going to do.  Clearly he assumed that Republicans are for apartheid, aren't they?  I agreed to speak at the rally but warned him that he would probably be disappointed.
When I was introduced as a representative of the College Republicans, I was not booed, but boy it was quiet.  I spoke in support of President Reagan's policy of "constructive engagement" i.e. using economic ties as leverage to force change in a society.  If this seems like a nutty right wing idea to my liberal friends, read President Obama's statements on the loosening of sanctions against Iran and you'll feel better about the idea if you think it came from him.
My remarks received polite applause. A professor who followed me launched into a diatribe about how we had apartheid in America when Dan Quayle could be nominated for Vice President, but not Jesse Jackson. I wanted to grab the mike back and point out that it was the Democratic nominee for President who passed over Jesse Jackson, but I resisted the temptation. Why interrupt a good diatribe against racist Republicans with facts?
But it does point out something about the history of our political parties and race.  We all know that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and the post-Civil War Amendments ending slavery were pushed through Congress by Republicans.  100 years later Lyndon Johnson would not have been able to sign the Civil Rights Act if Republican votes in the House and Senate had not ensured its passage.  Yet 20 years after that, a well educated young activist and one of his professors still assumed Republicans were pro apartheid racists.
Today, 25 years after that, after Colin Powell becoming the first African American Secretary of State in a Republican Administration and Condeleeza Rice serving a Republican President as the first female African American National Security advisor and Secretary of State, we hear of "racist" (i.e. the Tea Party) elements in the Republican Party.
Why? After assuring the passage of constitutional Amendments and laws that opened the doors of access to all Americans, Republicans have not signed on to the broader expansion of the welfare state in the name of "civil rights".  Republicans have favored policies that would lead, perhaps too gradually for some, to change. Constructive engagement with South Africa was an example of that.  Rhetorical flourishes in the name of "civil rights" have not been in the Republican playbook. Branding other issues such as minimum wage or education funding, as civil rights issues have not been the Republican way. Republicans have made our arguments on policy grounds, not emotion.
That is why, even today, I think if Occidental College held a tribute to Nelson Mandela on campus, some young Republican will be getting an invitation to present the "opposing viewpoint".