On the ACSR, Liebman says, the two sides are"very close to even." But the two-member CCSR"votes together" to maintain the University'spolicy of selective divestment over the completesale of stock from South Africa-related companies.
"They can do anything they want," Liebman saysof the Corporation committee.
What the Corporation has chosen to do is retainHarvard's selective divestment policy. Theofficial line on South Africa investments is thatHarvard will vote on proxy resolutions toencourage companies to divest, while refrainingselling stock in those companies should theyrefuse.
The University keeps its proxy voting policiesseparate from its investing policies, according toLiebman. "Although we'll vote in favor [of totaldivestment], we won't sell our stock," he says.
These proxy resolutions on South Africa willoccupy more than half of all those considered bythe CCSR this spring, according to the group'smid-year report.
Both Harvard and Radcliffe officials say theyhave tried to influence the apartheid governmentby influencing the South Africa-related companiesin which they own stock to actively work againstracism through progressive employer practices.
"The Harvard philosophy is to continue todivest from companies doing more harm than good[in South Africa]," Liebman says.
And Radcliffe President Matina S. Horner alsosays total divestment is not the best answer tothe apartheid problem. "If you totally divest, youturn your back on the issue," Horner says.
In trying to influence the South Africangovernment, Horner says an institution has to askitself, "'Why are you doing it' and 'Who are youtrying to speak to?'" Rather than merely making ablanket political statement through fulldivestment, Horner says universities "must educateby what we do, and not what we rant and raveabout."
Additionally, University officials say theyencourage some companies to stay in South Africaif they provide humanitarian services. Forinstance, although Harvard asked most of itscompanies with South African holdings to divest,Liebman says the University exempts drug companiesfrom this rule "on the grounds that they areneeded."
Morrell says Radcliffe has a similar policy.Out of 20 South Africa-related resolutionsconnected to withdrawal or cutting economic tiesthat Radcliffe has voted on this year, theschool's investment committee ruled against ineight cases. All instances involved drugcompanies.
But some other universities have chosen todivest completely from companies which haveholdings in South Africa. Columbia University, forinstance, "does not invest in any companies whichhave facilities in South Africa," says Roberta M.Weil, the school's vice president for investments.
Stanford University, however, maintains about$25 million worth of stocks in SouthAfrica-related companies, according to TreasurerRod Adams, while Cornell's stock ties total about$42 million.
But, Liebman says, although some schools haveofficially divested, "many remain more involvedwith the economy of South Africa than Harvard,"because of economic ties retained by companieseven after they have officially left the country.And, in fact, Weil says Columbia's divestmentpolicy "does not affect [a company's] licensing"in South Africa.
Thus, Liebman says, "the big press release isnot followed up by action."
But for all institutions--academic andotherwise--divestment has become an increasinglycomplicated issue. And, as divestment activistDamon A. Silvers '86 says, "the anti-apartheidmovement has got to increase its sophistication tomeet that of the companies [because] complicationshaven't changed the heart of the issue."