Rosovsky says, however, while no "restricted funds"--bequest money tagged for a specific purpose--are earmarked for Af-Am, many departments have no such nest egg. Rosovsky adds that his office juggles unrestricted funds to assure financial security to departments with no restricted money of their own.

Rosovsky defends his office's funding of the department, saying that despite declining student enrollment in the discipline, its funding has remained constant.

After the student group distributed its petitions, it made plans for an "Afro-American Studies Day" on April 19 to inform students better about the department's problems. Despite organizers' hopes for "a crowd of over 500," the chilly day brought out only about 100 marchers, swelling to about 300 a few times. Speakers at the rally cited problems in the department as examples of Harvard's "institutional racism." Rosovsky refused comment on the speeches.

Meanwhile, the student committee united with other student minority and political organizations to form a coalition representing ten groups. When representatives from the groups met in the basement of Quincy House on April 15, divestiture of Harvard's South African holdings and strengthening of the Afro-American Studies Department emerged as the group's most pressing concerns and they called for a student boycott of classes barely a week later.

Despite the closeness of the date, members of the coalition thought the number of students reached through its member groups would be large enough to give the movement momentum. Many students felt torn in supporting the boycott, however, because they felt the issues were only loosely related in that they both concerned blacks. Students opposed to the boycott also said they believed boycotting would be a statement of support for both issues, although some students either did not support one of the issues, or felt less strongly about one than another. "Sure, I'm for divestiture, but I don't know that much about the Afro-Am Department," one student says. "Maybe it would work better as a committee, like Social Studies--I don't know."

Another student says she did not like the idea of an issue she knew little about "being tacked on the tail end of one I obviously support: divestiture."

Supporters of a boycott linking the issues, however, believe that both issues are displays of University racism, and need to be fought together. "It is very easy to march for South Africa's liberation, but much more difficult to carry a concern for racism in your own life your own education," Cudjoe says.

The boycott cut class attendance about 50-60 per cent. About 450 students marched around the River Houses, and the crowd increased to about 700 when Elizabeth Sibeko, United Nations representative to the Pan-Africanist Congress, Guinier and others spoke on the steps of Pusey Library.

In terms of student turnout, the boycott worked. Estis says he feels the boycott was worthwhile "if for no other reason than that it got people informed about the Afro-Am issue." He says it is hard to say which of the issues people turned out to support, but hopes "we got everyone thinking about both."

But the boycott won neither of the students' demands for the department. Since the boycott, there have been no new methods conceived for funding the department, and no new faculty proposed for tenure appointments.

Perhaps because of the imminence of reading period, students did not continue to organize after the protest. Af-Am dropped out of the headlines, and the petitions distributed before the boycott, with their several hundred signatures, never reached Rosovsky's office. "We're thinking about doing something with them in the fall. We're not sure," Estis says.

In a new approach to the department's tenure problems, however, Rosovsky proposed to the Faculty Council early in May the formation of an executive committee to review faculty for tenure in Afro-American Studies. Guinier opposes the proposal, and the junior faculty in the department have refused to comment on the idea.

Guinier opposes the proposal, and the junior faculty in the department have refused to comment on the idea. Estis said last week that students supporting the department "have not yet decided whether it (the executive committee) would be a positive or negative step."

He adds that he felt Rosovsky's current proposal was indirectly a result of student concern shown through the spring demonstrations. Rosovsky says, however, that "fuss doesn't demonstrate anything. Students vote their support for a department by enrolling, and the enrollment in Afro-Am has dropped precipitously over the last few years."

Cudjoe said earlier this year that in 1972, more than 1000 students took Af-Am courses, and 80 per cent were white. Now, he said, only 314 students take the courses, and one concentrator is white. "The University's deprecation of the department is supported by the views of students who refuse to take our courses," Cudjoe adds.

Estis says he feels the boycott "brought the Afro-Am Department to students' doorsteps," and has already resulted in an increase in the number of concentrators. "We've got nine new freshman concentrators for next fall, and 21 or 22 new concentrators including joint ones," he adds.

It seems that an increase in enrollment in Afro-American Studies courses, and an increase in concentrators in the department, would be one sure way to show student interest in improving the department.

At the time of the boycott, one visiting committee member said, "Boycotts are fun, I suppose. But if each of those kids took one Afro-Am course while at Harvard, the University would have to tenure more professors whether they liked it or not; that's the only way they could handle the demand. And if you support something, that's not so much to ask, you know."