Nevertheless, there is some coordination--at Williams and elsewhere--among supporters of anti-apartheid actions. While advocates of divestiture at Harvard fasted last month, several students at Williams also staged brief "sympathy fasts." Students at Columbia University also staged a candlelight vigil in support of the Harvard hunger strikers at the time. Columbia's Board of Trustees is currently considering the recommendation of the Columbia Faculty Senate that the university divest from all companies conducting business in South Africa.

Members of the Campaign Against Public Investment, the national umbrella coalition, say that in the future these local efforts will have far more support from the national groups. In addition, a major focus for their activities is just now coming to the legislative forefront, they point out: a debate on corporate divestiture from businesses operating in South Africa should occur in the House of Representatives sometime next year.

The cause of the expected debate is a bill now pending in the City Council of Washington, D.C. Introduced by Councillor John Ray, a Democrat, the bill calls for immediate divestiture of the $30 million that the city's pension funds now invests in companies operating in the apartheid state, Washington, D.C.'s pension funds total more than $330 billion.

"The bill will pass, we've got a strong majority," says Margaret Gentry, special assistant to Ray.

Under the District of Columbia's unique local government procedures, however, any member of the House of Representatives has the opportunity to challenge any law passed by the City Council. Should the divestiture bill pass the City Council, Virginia Republican Stanford E. Parris has vowed that he will do just that. And "even if it doesn't pass [the House] at all, it will be a very important step," Hovey says. The American Committee on Africa, she adds, will be "watching the progress of the measure very carefully." Indeed, most of the divestiture groups contacted said they saw the upcoming debate as a crucial step in the national movement for divestiture.

But the divestiture issue may actually emerge in the House as early as this summer. In a unanimous vote last month the House Banking Committee approved House Resolution 2957. The bill directs the U.S. Director of the International Moneta's Fund (IMF) to oppose all loans to South Africa because of the "economic inefficiency of apartheid." The IMF is an international banking organization funded mainly by the U.S. that supplies billions of dollars annually to Third World nations. Backers of the measure hope to schedule a vote of the full House on the bill before the August recess.

In other actions in the House, the Banking Committee's subcommittee on financial institutions is currently considering legislation even more radical in its provisions on South Africa policy. House Resolution 1693, introduced by Rep. Steven Solarz (D-N.Y.) stipulates that the United States forbid all bank loans to South Africa from this country, ban all imports of Krugerrands to the United States, and require that all subsidiaries of U.S. companies operating in South Africa abide by the Sullivan Principles. Observers are confident about the future of the first bill, but less sure about the outcome of a vote on the second. "We are pretty sure that the first bill [H.R. 2957] will pass, but prospects for the second look muddy," said a source on the Banking Committee who asked not to be identified.

Despite the success in recent months and positive prospects in the near future, next year will be a crucial one for the national divestiture movement. "We've grown tremendously over the past three years," AFSC South African coordinator Herman says. "But we need more."