Finally, Bok protests that divestiture would aim right at the heart of education. If Harvard divests it might lose money and be forced to cut back on education funds.

For a University with all the investment brainpower of Harvard to say that it could not over a period of a year profitably rearrange its portfolio is straining credibility. Students are not demanding that Harvard literally sell all of its stock in one fell swoop. Harvard can drag it out over a year or two if it wants to.

BOK'S FINAL ARGUMENT is that divestment is ineffective.

He proposes that if divestment did force American companies to leave South Africa, it would only create more Black unemployment and not change the Afrikaaner regime. There is a certain wisdom to this argument; it might be compelling were it not for the fact that "intensive dialogue" and the Sullivan principles have been outrageuosly ineffective. In addition, the amount of increased Black unemployment would probably be miniscule and tolerable compared to what divestment is aimed at eliminating.

An even greater weakness of divestment as an effective means of ending apartheid, Bok says, is stockholder replacement. He argues that if we sold our stock, it would naturally be bought by someone else, presumably less concerned over apartheid, and therefore contribute nothing to resolution of the problem. It's very generous of Bok to keep Harvard's hands dirty to spare other investors; perhaps Bok would like to send Libya some nuclear weapon blueprints to spare other Universities from providing the information to Quadaffy?

The only effective moral stand left for the University is to divest. Most Black South Africans call for divestment and one day we hope that the Black leaders of South Africa will remember that someone listened to them.

ONE FEAR BOK might have is that if divestment does not have the effect of persuading companies to pull out of South Africa, then Harvard would be making an absurd, extremist gesture calculated to purify ourselves but do nothing.

Of course, compared to Harvard's ineffective practical stand right now, moral effectiveness and purity might be a welcome change. It will cause people to stop, think and take the South Africa situation more seriously. As it is right now Harvard is engaged in its own absurd mini-diplomacy with companies concerning the Sullivan principles. And how seriously do congressmen take Bok when he lobbies for limited sanctions against South Africa while his University does the least it can about apartheid?

Derek Bok has shown himself to be as personally committed to finding a workable solution to South Africa's apartheid as most other people at this University. But now is the time for him to call for divestment.

The situation in South Africa has become clearer and clearer as the years have gone on. U.S. influence has diminished in the region, and Pretoria needs a very clear message that the U.S. is going to leave it behind unless some changes are forthcoming. Harvard can help send that message by giving up its obsolete stance and divesting.