With Harvard assuming the upper hand in the question over its investment, the SASC will most likely place divestiture in a "secondary position" to the committee's other efforts at promoting corporate withdrawal.

The SASC will redirect its activities. It plans to join with other student anti-apartheid groups to provide material aid for Zimbabwe's Patriotic Front and to oppose a boxing match between the black American John Tate and the white South African Gerrie Coetzee. Rothschild says the upcoming fight "is being used as a ploy for white supremicist propaganda, with Coetzee billed as the 'Great White Hope.'"

But the SASC's major campaign this fall, its members emphasize, will be a canvassing drive for a city referendum calling on Cambridge to divest of its holding in banks operating in South Africa. Committee members will encourage students to register for the vote this week and will canvass on behalf of the referendum right up until the local elections in November. If Cambridge approves the referendum, it will join Berkeley, Cal., which voted last spring to divest of its holdings in banks loaning to South Africa.

The SASC will continue to support what one member terms the "strengthening" of the Afro-American Studies Department--the appointment of more tenured faculty to the department. But it remains to be seen whether the student body will sympathize with the SASC's espousal of University issues unrelated to South Africa. During last spring's boycott, students expressed doubts over the link between divestiture and the future of the Afro-American Studies Department.

If the Corporation and President Bok continue last year's policy and churn out progress reports on corporate activity and open letters on university responsibility, students will most likely continue to remain relatively docile, convinced of the University's progress and concern. And there is ever indication that the University knows that it's playing a winning game. The Corporation did not even discuss the South Africa issue during the summer and, according to Daniel Steiner '54, general counsel to the University, President Bok may issue more open letters if "topics come up of widespread interest." In addition, the ACSR will continue inconclusive and seemingly endless review of corporate practices in South Africa.

With the Corporation following its policy of last year, as indecisive as it was successful, and with the SASC focusing its activities away from the Harvard divestiture issue and toward the Boston area, it would appear that the debate over Harvard's South Africa related investments will fade away from the arena of the Corporation's concerns. But while the SASC may enlarge the range of its activities, the faculty, the soft spot in the heart of every university president, may be the group that sees the South Africa debate continues.

Last spring the full faculty discussed Harvard's relation to its investments and then followed up the debate with a letter, signed by 140 professors, calling on Harvard to adopt a graduated, five-step policy promoting corporate withdrawal from South Africa. In addition, a small group of the letter's signers said they would meet with Congressional leaders and corporate directors to encourage the phasing-out of U.S. corporate activities in South Africa. The group of faculty, however, will not discuss its plans until classes begin, one its members said last week.

With the SASC taking a wait-and-see attitude, leaving the initiative to the University, the future of the South Africa issue will depend on the sincerity of faculty concern and the capacity of the Corporation to blunder.