And the new policy expresses concern about theways in which companies withdraw from SouthAfrica--an issue brought into the spotlight by theMobil announcement.

This issue is not a completely novel one forthe University's money managers, though. Forexample, Radcliffe College, which maintains itsown $80 million endowment and owns close to $1million in Mobil stock, wrote a letter to the oilcompany in May, 1988, questioning its policies,according to Morrell.

In the letter, Morrell wrote to Mobil's chiefexecutive, Allen E. Murray, asking him to adviseRadcliffe of the company's "position relative tothe sale of products directly to the [SouthAfrican] police and military." The letter saysthat "such information will enable us to determinewhether it is appropriate to continue to holdMobil in the College's portfolio."

Written to "put pressure on" Mobil, the letteryielded no concrete response from the oil company,according to Morrell. Instead, the Mobil responseexplained that the company does not directly sellcrude oil to South African and cited South Africanand cited South African security laws whichprohibit disclosure of companies that do businesswith the apartheid regime's military.

Nonetheless, Radcliffe chose to retain itsholdings in Mobil, Morrell says, despite a policyof not holding stocks in companies which dobusiness with South Africa's police or military.It is unclear whether Harvard is currentlyinvested in Mobil, although it does not appear onthe list of the University's 50 largest holdingsas of June, 1988.

But Radcliffe's uneasy acceptance of Mobil'sSouth Africa policies underscores what Universityaffiliates concede is a difficult set ofinvestment decisions.

"Here's a company [Mobil] that's doingsome-thing really bad," says Ronald A. Goodman'60, an alumni member of the ACSR. Companies suchas Mobil force the University to ask, "'ShouldHarvard stay with a company to put pressure on itor should Harvard get out?'" according to Goodman.

This new set of questions has generated adifferent type of response from those who urgedivestment from South Africa. For example, insteadof shareholder resolutions urging companies todivest of South Africa-related holdings, thesestatements are more and more often demanding anend to all economic ties with the country.

"The attention is shifting from divestment to'cut all ties' resolutions...because some[divested companies] still have a regularrelationship," says Liebman.

These resolutions, however, have polarized theACSR, a group that many characterize as an alreadydivided body. "Those questions have divided thecommittee down the middle," Liebman says.

Within the ACSR, Liebman says there are twofactions. "One side views all relationships withSouth Africa as bad," he says, while the othersees the apartheid nation as an "evolvingcountry."

Goodman, who says he supports total divestment,says that although "there isn't anybody [on theACSR] who feels that apartheid isn't anabomination," committee members have differentideas about how Harvard--as an educationalinstitution--should influence public policy.

Goodman asserts that "Harvard, having theinfluence that it has, could [make divestment] aneffective gesture on opinion in the world."

That strategy is precisely the one whichpro-divestment activists from students and alumnito South African Archbishop Desmond M. Tutu andthe Rev. Allen Boesak have urged Harvard topursue.

Liebman, though, identifies himself with thegroup urging selective divestment. "All contactwith South Africa is not evil," Liebman says,because Harvard, as a stockholder, can try toinfluence companies from within.