The Republic of South Africa is a country where a white minority lives in health and comfort, reaping the fruits of a richlyendowed, modern industrial economy. It is also a country where black children are so malnourished, susceptible to disease, and deprived of medical care that, according to United Nations estimates, half of them die before reaching age six.

The gruesome realities of the apartheid system are not, per se, the subject of controversy at Harvard. Everyone here, at least in words, opposes apartheid. The questions before the Harvard community are: whether it is appropriate for Harvard to maintain investments in corporations which operate in South Africa; what the impact would be of a move to divest from such corporations; and how to weigh the contribution that action would make to anti-apartheid efforts against the possible financial losses to Harvard from changing its investment policy.

The purpose of this article is to explain why an increasing number of Harvard Faculty members are calling for divestiture. We shall discuss: (1) the ways in which divestiture would contribute to the elimination of apartheid; (2) the viewpoints of prominent South African opponents of apartheid; (3) the costs to Harvard of divestiture; (4) the fallacies in Harvard's present approach.

Let us suppose Harvard announced that it intended to divest from corporations which operate in South Africa, thereby joining a growing international effort to ostracize the Nationalist government of that country through economic and other sanctions. Naturally, time will be allowed to effect an orderly transition to an investment policy based on stocks not involved with South Africa, real estate, government bonds, etc.; but after a specified date Harvard would have severed its financial ties to the apartheid regime. What could we expect to be the impact of such an action by Harvard?

First, other universities and non-profit institutions would come under intense pressure to follow Harvard's example. Second, those companies which are most sensitive to public relations would have to re-examine their South African ties, deciding either not to expand existing operations, to start cutting back operations, or, in some cases, to withdraw entirely. Thirdly, political leaders and corporate planners who try to gauge long-term trends would see Harvard's action as further evidence that the days of the white minority regime are numbered. To be sure, divestiture would not have an immediate financial effect on the companies which operate in South Africa. The impace of such a dramatic move would be felt on a deeper level.

Such action by Harvard would boost the morale of the anti-apartheid; movement both in Africa and world-wide. Conversely, it would be a powerful blow to the arrogant self confidence of the Nationalists in South Africa. As Donald Woods, exiled South African newspaper editor and Harvard Nieman fellow, explained in a recent interview with The Crimson: The South African government has this belief that Uncle Sam will always bail it out. It looks upon Americans as basically white and believes that they'll think racially. It's my belief that until something is done that actually costs the United States, something that proves that the U.S. is not kidding around the South African government will see no reason to change at all. The only things I can see that are non-violent, and that would constitute a strong pressure are withdrawal of investment and loan money from South Africa, and recall of the ambassador. It will take something fairly dramatic, like withdrawal of economic and diplomatic support, to get it through to them, finally, that they either have to start negotiating with black leaders or face the whole thing on their own.

The reputation of Harvard University as a bastion of Western cultural and intellectual tradition is especially strong in the emerging African elites. But many in that group mistrust the West because of the years of European colonialism, the long period of total support by the West of white supremacy in South Africa, and the continuing refusal to back U.N. sanctions against South Africa. Seen in this context, Harvard is faced with the choice of a policy of ambivalence on apartheid (opposing it in words while at the same time profiting from it)--which can only cause cynicism among Africans--or a forthright stand which could start to win back the good will of Africa's present and future leaders.

Virtually all black organizations and leaders that are carrying on the struggle against apartheid in South Africa call for U.S. corporate withdrawal. This is the official position of the Black People's Convention, the South African Students Organizations, the African National Congress, the Pan-African Congress, the South African Congress of Trade Unions, and the Christian Institute in South Africa.

The argument of the anti-apartheid forces in South Africa is best summarized in the 1976 statement of the Christian Institute in South Africa:

Governmental insistence on enforcing apartheid and its rejection of normal negotiation with freely chosen black leaders, have produced a situation in which there are few ways of preventing the escalation of violence and bloodshed into a major confrontation. One of the few remaining methods of working peacefully is through economic pressure, which could help to motivate the changes needed to bring justice and peace...The Christian Institute supports the call for no further investment in South Africa because:

1. Strong economic pressure is of vital importance in bringing about as peaceful a solution as possible.

2. Investment in South Africa is investment in apartheid, and this is immoral, unjust and exploitative.

3. Attempts to change the situation through pressure by investors have proved inadequate.

4. The argument that economic growth can produce fundamental change has proven false. Many black organizations have opposed foreign investment in South Africa, and this would be the opinion of the majority in South African blacks if their voices could be heard.

The late Chief Albert J. Luthuli, Nobel Peace Prize winner and president of the African National Congress, conceded that corporate withdrawal would entail "hardship for Africans." "But," he argued, if it is a method which shortens the day of blood, the suffering to us will be a price we are willing to pay. In any case, we suffer already, our children are often undernourished, and, on a small scale (so far), we die at the whim of a policeman."