Throughout the 19-year tenure of President Derek C. Bok, no issue has remained in the public eye so long as the University's refusal to divest completely from firms doing business in South Africa.

No issue has galvanized such intensive student protest. No issue has caused tempers to flare so high. And on no issue has Bok's distinctive ability to weather controversy been more apparent than in his handling of the divestment campaign.

Throughout his presidency, Bok has steadfastly resisted pressure from student protesters on the divestment issue, politely but firmly refusing to implement their demands.

While divestment activists note that Bok has generally been willing to listen to their opinions, he has shown an uncanny ability to avoid making concessions while appearing flexible.

But after 20 years in office, the issue has still not gone away, and, as Bok prepares to step down at the end of next year, critics now point to the ongoing controversy over South Africa as the principal black mark on his term of office.

"[Divestment] has been [Bok's] Achilles' heel," says Peter H. Wood '64, a member of the Board of Overseers who was elected on a dissident, prodivestment slate. "He's had a certainly admirable presidency. There just is no clear reason why he allowed this particular issue to become so divisive for the Harvard community."

Early Controversy

When Bok assumed his position atop the University in 1972, an ethical debate was already raging over Harvard investment in companies that did business in Southern African countries.

The initial conflict concerned University ownership of stock in Gulf Oil, which at the time had heavily invested in operations in Angola, then a Portugese colony. At the time, divestment activists argued that through its investment in Gulf, Harvard was supporting a regime that openly endorsed discrimination against Blacks.

These initial seeds of discontent quickly developed into widespread student protests in the early 1970s, culminating in a takeover of University Hall in the spring of 1972.

Peter Shapiro '74, who covered the Angola divestiture debate for The Crimson in 1972, says that these early demonstrations "were clearly a precedent for the divestment movement, this came well before the other issues."

And as concern over treatment of Blacks in Southern Africa continued to mount, so did the level of protest. More than 2000 activists calling for total divestment from South Africa staged a massive rally in the spring of 1978, culminating once again in the takeover of University Hall. The issue flared up once more in 1982, and again in 1986, with each successive protest focusing new attention on the issue.

And although Harvard's stance on divestment has clearly evolved on the issue, with the University now prohibiting investment in companies that do not adhere to the so-called "Sullivan Principles," Bok has constantly remained wary of succumbing to the demands of protesters.

"Harvard should be embarassed over South Africa," says Phillippe Bourgois '78. "I mean, the City of New York has already divested. It makes you wonder about academic leadership at Harvard when a bureaucratic body like New York City reacts more quickly. There is a clear lack of moral and ethical vision."

A participant in a later student demonstration outside University Hall in the spring of 1978, Bourgois says that Harvard needed someone inside the Corporation to stand up and voice personal convictions about apartheid instead of supporting the current policy.