On Sunday, Archbishop Desmond M. Tutu dramatically stated that he would push Harvard's Board of Overseers to reevaluate its South African divestment policy in an effort to urge further reform in that country.

But by Tuesday, Harvard's top officials had said that divestment probably would not be discussed at the Board's next meeting. Specifically, President Derek C. Bok said the University would not reconsider its policy unless there were even more drastic changes in South Africa.

And given the uncertainty of events in South Africa, Bok's statements mean that Harvard, in all likelihood, will not actually change its divestment policy in the immediate future.

Until this week, the divestment issue seemed dead as far as the Board of Overseers was concerned. Both Bok and Overseers President John C. Whitehead had said repeatedly that the question was decided, and that the Board should tend to other business.

But when Tutu came to Sunday's regular meeting--just after South African President F.W. de Klerk had announced plans for substantial reform--he was asked to speak about his country's situation. After that meeting, he said he sensed willingness among other overseers to reopen discussion of selling Harvard's $139 million in South Africa-related holdings.

"My reading is that there is a greater willingness on the Board to consider getting...tougher than they have been," Tutu said. "And they are saying that we ought to put it on the agenda. Now I'm not sure whether they agreed."

Whitehead himself said that "if Tutu would like discussion, I am sure there will be discussion. And maybe by that time, there will be changes that cause Harvard's policy to change...the general idea was to watch and wait."

Given Whitehead's position as chair of the Overseers' Executive Committee--which sets the Board's agenda--it seemed as if Tutu's assessment was correct, and that divestment would again be a major issue for the Board.

But in an interview Tuesday, Bok expressed doubt that the Board would take "that issue up in a serious sense."

One overseer says there is a "clear desire on the part of president and [the Overseers president] not to have it brought up. It's a closed inner circle that sets the agenda."

But Bok says Harvard is merely waiting for more drastic change before reconsidering its own policy.

For instance, Tutu had said that reinvestment might be the eventual goal if South Africa institutes radical reforms. But Bok said that such suggestions are still premature, given that only the promise--and not the implementation--of change has taken place in South Africa.

"I suppose one could say since they did some things in the right direction we should change our policy in the other direction," Bok said. "I think that would certainly not happen. We're certainly not going to reinvest unless much more decisive steps are taken in terms of negotiated settlements in dismantling apartheid."

Overseer Peter Wood '64, who was elected to the Board on a pro-divestment slate, also cautions against moving too fast to reinvest in South Africa. He says Americans are too prone to invest minor reform there with more importance than they merit.

"It's always interesting how if you look at the Bush Administration's reaction to Eastern Europe, he wants to be cautious," Wood says. "But in dealing with South Africa, all you need is a promise--they're not held to the same standards that we hold up to the Communist world."

Chance for Reflection

At the very least, recent events in South Africa have gotten the Board to reflect about what its policy toward South Africa can do. But until change is actually instituted there, divestment will probably remain off the Board's serious agenda.

"There must be a lot of uncertainty on the Board, and this is certainly a time when the Board should reconsider its policy," one overseer says, "but it's not clear to me that the Executive Committee will be open to discussing divestment."