GOVERNOR EDWARD J KING suffered a number of political setbacks during his controversial term but it wasn't until two days before the end of his four years in office that the legislature overrode a veto The vote this week upholding the legislature's previous decision to divest all state pension finds from firms doing business in South Africa was not even close The Senate voted 23 to 5 on the sanction on Monday the House followed suit the next day 134 to 2

Such near-unanimity on the beated topic comes somewhat as a surprise for a body which has tarnished its progressive credentials in the last month by legalizing the death penalty and by taking steps to illegutize abortions Moreover, the legislature has also waffled on the divestment issue in the past--the bill was first introduced in 1979 and did not come to a vote until the end of last year.

The veto override is a milestone in the national movement to pressure the South Africa government into discarding its in stitutionalized racism Massachusetts is the first state to enact such strict investments guidelines Connecticut and Michigan recently adopted less stringent divestment rules and may encourage other states to follow suit Sen. Jack Backman (D-Brookline), one of the original sponsors of the bill, noted recently that 15 other legislatures are considering similar measures, adding "I hope this is the beginning of a snow ball effect all over the country."

By setting this example, the legislature should also step up the heat on private institutions within the Commonwealth--especially Harvard Since the divestiture issue exploded on campus four springs ago. University officials have firmly withstood public pressure to divest from businesses contributing to the economic welfare of South Africa's apartheid system. President Bok has upheld the importance of universities presenting their political neutrality, the Corporation has insisted that divestment would diminish any leverage Harvard might have over the behavior of these companies, along with hurting the University financially.

BUT THE LANDMARK Massachusetts vote casts a new light on these arguments and consequently should force Bok and the Corporation to reexamine their stance. The first two objections--the importance of preserving political purity, and the relative effectiveness of divestment over pressure from within--are grounded more on principle than on facts Although the debate in the legislature and with Gov. King added few new arguments to this thoroughly discussed topic, the Commonwealth's overwhelming rejection of these concerns, thus upholding the moral principles behind divestment, makes the practice more acceptable than principle.

In rejecting the original bill. King himself stated that he was not swayed by the objections of principle. On the question of corporate neutrality, he wrote to the legislature that "we must reflect carefully on those policies which further diminish the ability of American businesses to compete abroad, but he added that "the moral imperative presented by the official racism of South Africa would in my judgment be a circumstance that calls for an extra business commitment." Granted, that an institution of learning, such as Harvard, must be more concerned with political neutrality than a state government, the University's willingness to divest from firms making loans to South African government as it did with Citicorp--and its agreement to pressure companies working in the company to support higher standards for racial equality--as it is doing with Carnation--already violate this absolute moral rule Bok himself has acknowledged that South Africa's abhorrent practice make it an exception to the rule.

The Corporation's intransigence follows unsubstantiated belief that holding money in a company allows them more leverage than threatening to take the funding away. But divestment proponents question whether any company working in South Africa can effectively bring about equality. They assert that even in firms adhering to the Sullivan principles--a corporate code of ethics for firms doing business in the country--Blacks earn substantially less than whites They also note that while the number of firms adhering to these guidelines has increased, so has the white minority's repressive activities. In examining his rejection of the divestiture legislation. King maintained that leverage within the companies didn't play a significant role in his veto. He acknowledge "the uncertainty as to the best course," and said that "given the importance of the moral issue and the strength of the conviction of the bill's proponents that isolation is the better way. I am prepared to enact, as a matter of policy, a divestment bill."

The governor and University officials overlap in their beliefs about the financial effects of divestment King decided that the state's "moral obligation...as fiduciary for the pensioners vested in the retirement system" outweighed these other concerns, and he explained that divestment of $100 million out of a total $1.3 billion fund could cost $15 million.

On this point, the legislature disagreed They were swayed, first by the assessment of the bill's proponents that because of rising stock and bond prices, the divestment could actually make money Further, those whose financial interests King said he was defending themselves left that the need to combat opression overrode their own pecuniary concerns Members of the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, the Mass Teachers Federation, and the Service Employees International Union all depend on the fund for their retirement incomes, yet they all supported the bill and pushed for the legislative override.

That state government, especially the state in which Harvard resides, found it necessary and proper to divest from companies doing business in South Africa takes the campus debate out of the realm of the theoretical, and gives the arguments for the measure new weight Advocates of divestment should take the opportunity to put new pressure on Bok and the Corporation to justify their stance, or to change it.