After two months of student protest and heated debate, the Advisory Committee on Shareholder Responsibility (ACSR) last night unanimously voted to recommend that Harvard maintain its automatic ban on investing in banks that make loans to South Africa.

Corporation member Charles P. Slichter '45 and College Treasurer George Putnam '50 declined comment last night on whether the Corporation would follow the committee's non-binding advice and maintain the University's ban on South Africa Loans.

But student members of the 12-person committee last night speculated that it would be very difficult for the Corporation to ignore the unanimous sentiment expressed at last night's meeting.

"If they defy this vote---they [the Corporation members] are really going to isolate themselves," Frederick T. Smith, the law school representative to the ACSR said after the meeting. "I don't think there is much question" that the Corporation will have to maintain the present ban, he added.

The statement the ACSR approved last night said in part. "While the ACSR appreciates the ethical dilemma in which the current automatic divestiture policy could conceivably place the Corporation, the ACSR reaffirms the policy it recommended in 1978 to divest automatically the debt securities of banks which make loans to the South African government."

The seven Corporation members will gather Monday for a regular meeting, but will probably not discuss the ACSR recommendation because their agenda is set at least a week in advance, said Candace R. Corvey, secretary to the ACSR.

Corvey will meet with Hugh Calkins '45 chairman of the Corporation's subcommittee on shareholder responsibility. Monday morning to convey formally the ACSR's recommendation.

Bradford C. Mank '82, president of the Southern Africa, Solidarity Committee (SASC), said. "If the Corporation doesn't vote to reaffirm the policy, they would clearly show how despicable they are" and that "they are not serious about the question of investment morality."

SASC, which opposes all loans to South Africa on the grounds that they serve to reinforce a racist government, has organized most of the student opposition to the proposed policy change.

Before the committee voted 10.0, with two members absent to maintain the ban-enacted in 1978 after months of student protest--atleast two members had indicated support for changing the present policy, said Patrick A. Haherty, the graduate school representative.

He added, though, that resistance to maintaining the policy collapsed quickly in the course of the committee's discussion and that "no real opposition" to reaffirming that blanket ban existed.

The University temporarily suspended its ban on South Africa loans on January in favor of a case-by-case review policy and at that time asked the ACSR to review the decision and make a formal recommendation.

Students on the committee interviewed last night were unanimous in praise of the recent ground swell of student opposition to lefting the ban and especially the display of support at last week's open meeting of the ACSR.

At that open meeting, 300 people packed Emerson Hall to join the advisory committee in lastening to 30 speakers denounce the proposed lifting of the ban on loans.

"Without massive student resistance to the proposed change, right now we would be dealing with [a changed bank loan policy]," said Flaherty.

"The student impact at the open meeting played a very important role," in convincing the ACSR to reject the proposed change, said Smith. "The student impact was crucial."

About 30 students picketed last night's meeting in an effort "to remind" the ACSR that students were concerned about the issue Mank said.