The issue was South Africa. Under steadily building pressure from students, University officials in April found themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to make a comprehensive statement on just what they planned to do with Harvard's multi-million dollar investments in companies operating in that country -- investments that students said were bolstering the apartheid system.

As the seven men who comprise the Harvard Corporation finished drawing up their position in the old President's House and walked outside, they could not help but feel a little nervous, for less than 100 feet away more than 1000 students were holding an anti-apartheid rally. In the hope of taking the steam out of the protests, the Corporation decided to delay releasing its decision for two days. Despite the delay, the release of the decision rejecting student demands for divestiture set the stage for the largest student demonstration at Harvard in five years as more than 3000 students participated in a peaceful torchlight march that night. And the next day, April 28, students encircled Unviersity Hall in a "sit-out" that closed administation offices -- the culmination of a week in which University officials saw the abrupt end of their vision of the much-heralded new mood on campus.

The "new mood" had always been little more than a journalistic convention, but it was one which President Bok and other key University officials treasured dearlu. The demise of the new mood and the cautious but steady rise of student activism hit the University hard this year; the pop sociologists with their love of labelling events at the expense of explaining them had not prepared Harvard officials for the change.

Harvard's financial involvement in South Africa is not a new issue, but this year was the first in which a core of students opposed to Harvard's investment policy were able to find popular support among their usually passive peers. The reason for that success lies, for the most part, in the ability of the groups fighting the investment policy tos trengthen their organizing efforts. They were able to elevate the South Africa question -- whichis hardly a major concern in America outside certaihn Congressional hearings and some universities -- to the level of a major issue at Harvard.

As would be expected, questions of morality played a central role in students' attacks on Harvard's investment policy; to a surprising degree, however, both sides in the fight relied on questions of evidence -- questions over the pragmatic effect of Harvard's investments in South Africa. The moral issues, to be sure, attracted most of the protesting students to the movement, but once the battle lines were drawn, the students found themselves having to amass factual evidence in order to counter the Administration, which argued that it also found apartheid morally repugnant but believed that Harvard could best serve the interests of South African blacks by encouraging American companies there to introduce labor reforms.

The leaders of groups against Harvard's investment policy contend that even if American companies were to initiate labor reforms, the firms would have no practical effect on the apartheid system because they employ only four-tenths of 1 per cent of the black work force in South Africa. American companies in which Harvard holds stock serve only to bolster the apartheid system by supplying the South African white-minority government with the funds it needs to continue building a strong military and police force, the anti-apartheid group say.

The arguments over the South Africa issue may become even more complex this year, as the University begins reviewing its investment policy towards specific companies on a case-by-case basis. However, the pro-divesture groups' arguments will probably remain centered aroung two points. First, students note that divestitutre at Harvard -- which has by far the largest endowment of any university in the nation -- would attract heavy publicity, possibly helping the anti-apartheid movment elsewhere. The second point was perhaps most succintly expressed by Mary Nolan, assistant professor of history, in challenging Harvard Corporation members: "If you don't divest, you're an accomplice to apartheid and I think you should own up to that."

While the active anti-apartheid groups are unanimous in their support of divestiture, the question of how fast the University should go in releasing its holdings in firms operating in South Africa remains, to some degree, a divisive issue. Some observers categorize the groups -- and the individuals within each group -- on a moderate-to-radical scale; this, however, is something of a misrepresentation, as the students advocating a more moderate approach are often no less radical than the other protesters in their political ideals but simply take a more pragmatic stand.

This spring, the principal groups active in the anti-apartheid demonstrations included the Southern Africa Solidarity Committee (SASC), the Democratic Socialists, and four campus minority organizations. Several minority organizations, especially the Black Students' Association, had already built effective systems for dealing with major political issues; SASC, though a relatively young group, quickly developed workable organizing techniques.

One factor in the success of the groups' organizing efforts this spring was the pooling of their efforts in the United Front -- in which the six organizations presented a united opposition to the University's investment policies handed down in April. It is as yet unclear how the organizations will work together this year -- and that may prove an important factor in determining the success of their activities. Most students in the groups, confident from the high turn-outs in the demonstrations last spring, believe they will be able to keep up the momentum for change. Some even express hope that they will see a broad leftward turn in the politics of the students. The more cautious students, however, hold back judgement on that point and continue developing organizing techniques and amassing the evidence they believe they will need to lead an effective fight against the University's investment policy in South Africa over the next few months and years