This article is the last in a two-part series on the University's investment policies.

Next Monday, Harvard's Corporation Committee on Shareholder Responsibility (CCSR) will meet with its advisory board--made up of alumni, faculty and students--to discuss the future of University investment policy.

And they will be sure to discuss what has been the major issue in CCSR policy meeting--the debate over whether Harvard should divest of its $163.8 million of stock in companies with holdings in South Africa.

Yet even as the CCSR--a standing committee of Harvard's seven-member chief governing board--prepares once again to confront the lingering South Africa investment question, many Harvard officials now say that divestment in itself is no longer the main issue.

Instead, they say, companies are finding ways of technically withdrawing from South Africa while still maintaining economic ties through licensing agreements and subsidiary holdings. And they add that this issue is shaping up as the next major sticking point for large-scale investors such as Harvard, which currently has over $2.1 billion in public stock holdings.

"That's the issue that will be the big issue over the next couple of years," says Professor of Law Lance M. Liebman, who heads the Advisory Committee on Shareholder Responsibility (ACSR).

The ACSR was created in 1972 to advise theCorporation's committee on issues associated withethical investing, but has no formaldecision-making power. Since 1985, Harvard'spolicy of "selective divestment" from companiesthat do business in South Africa has remained thesame, although the University's total holdings inSouth Africa have declined about 30 percent in thelast year as a result of companies deciding ontheir own to divest.

"Everyone expected it would be over afterdivestment, but it's not," says RadcliffeTreasurer Louis R. Morrell.

Recent events nationwide have heightened theurgency of the South Africa question, according tomany associated with the University's investmentoperations. Just last week Mobil OilCorporation--which has already divested but stillretains strong economic ties throughsubsidiaries--announced that it intended to sellits remaining franchises in South Africa.

Many activists had raised concerns over Mobil'sdivestment procedure because the company chose notto negotiate with the chemical workers'union--which represents about 1200 of the oilcompany's 1500 Black employees in South Africa.

In fact, the chemical workers' union and othersaccuse Mobil of misrepresenting its divestmentfrom South Africa. They charge that the companymay have sold its plants though it retainedlicensing agreements and allowed the new owner touse the Mobil logo.

And those charges against Mobil in many waysrepresent the substance of the new debate aboutwhat--if any--economic ties should be maintainedby companies that have formally divested fromSouth Africa.

"Some companies have in effect franchised theirname; some have genuinely pulled out in a way thatprotects workers and some have not," says RobertP. Wolff '54, who is the head of an alumni groupthat has nominated pro-divestment candidates forthe Board of Overseers for the past four years.

Wolff adds, however, that Harvard-RadcliffeAlumni Against Apartheid has yet to take aposition on this new twist to the divestmentissue. "Our focus is Harvard's investment policyso we haven't taken a stand on this," he says.

In fact, the University recently adopted ageneral policy that favors total withdrawal fromSouth Africa by the companies in which it ownsstock. This stance followed the recommendations ofa joint committee of Harvard's governingboards--the Corporation and the alumni-electedBoard of Overseers.