But now, recent events in South Africa have signalled that the death of apartheid may be on the horizon, and the Corporation is once again in the familiar position of lagging behind its advisory committee.

The Changing Face of Apartheid

Back in 1971, when student activism on divestment at Harvard took shape, and even as recently as 1989, the issue was quite clear. The all-white South African government oppressed and discriminated against the Black populace, muffling their cries for equality, subjugating them in the work place and segregating them in public institutions.

In the last 12 months, though, the South African government has released anti-apartheid leader Nelson Mandela after 27 years of imprisonment, lifted the ban on the African National Congress and repealed several major apartheid laws, including the Group Areas Act, the Population Registration Act and the Separate Amenities Act, which segregated all public facilities.

Student Interest Fading

In the wake of these recent events, the student calls for complete divestment have faded substantially, and now, the CCSR's advisory committee for the first time have expressed a majority opinion that some companies should not be asked to withdraw from South Africa.

Those members in the majority argued that some companies could serve a positive role in a post-apartheid South Africa. Under this reasoning, the advisory committee voted against urging the withdrawal of Colgate and International Paper from South Africa.

The Corporation committee chose not to follow the advisory committee's recommendation, voting for the withdrawal of these companies, but it said in its annual report, released last week, that it will reconsider the issue next year.

The CCSR also supported resolutions calling for the withdrawal of Baker Hughes, Gillette and Borden, and voted in favor of two resolutions calling on General Motors to cut all ties with South Africa.

In maintaining its current position of endorsing withdrawal, the Corporation argued in its report that a change in policy might send the wrong message: that enough has been done to end apartheid.

The lag between the two committee raises interesting questions about which group holds the progressive line.

"Whereas in previous years the ACSR has always seemed to be more liberal than the CCSR," says ACSR member Anton N. Quist '92, "The views about the sanctions issue are turning over so rapidly that you can't say which of the two is the more liberal."

While the issue of divestment may be more clouded now than ever, what is clear is that for the next several years, University policy on divestment will be in a state of uncertainty.

"The South Africa issue is really in limbo," Quist says. "It's even harder than before to vote on these sanctions issues when we don't exactly know what the effects will be."

As a result, there is no consensus on the divestment issue. On the advisory committee, some members firmly believe that sanctions should remain in place until South Africa is on an irreversible road to ending apartheid.