NORTHAMPTON — A monthslong push by Students for Justice in Palestine to persuade Smith College to divest from weapons manufacturers tied to Israel ended last week when a trustee advisory committee voted to reject the proposal.
The proposal, titled “Ethical Investment Policy & Procedure Request,” was put forth by SJP and its sister organization, Alumni for Justice in Palestine (AJP), and called for the college to cut financial ties with weapons companies, military contractors and other corporations that aid in the assault on Gaza.
“I can’t think why a liberal arts institution like Smith College, founded on lofty ideas and now committed to such noble aims as equity, inclusion, diversity and excellence, would want to be invested in weapons or technologies of war, genocide and environmental devastation,” said Katherine Sullivan, a member of the Class of 1975. “Let’s put our money where our mouths are. Let’s invest in green technologies, innovative health and medical initiatives and other activities that benefit humankind. Let’s be a light in this dark world.”
SJP argued that its proposal is meant to align the college’s financial investments with its historic track record for standing with human rights, comparing the proposed divestment from Israel to the college’s 1986 divestment from the South African apartheid. However, the college’s Advisory Committee on Investor Responsibility (ACIR), in its written response to the student activist organizations, cites a misalignment between the proposal and the college’s mission statement as a reason for the proposal’s rejection.
“After careful and exhaustive review, the ACIR concluded that the proposal does not fully satisfy the criteria required to recommend further consideration or action by the Investment Committee,” the committee wrote. “Specifically, the proposal lacks mission alignment, societal impact, and community consensus. There is also concern that it would have a negative financial impact, limiting the ability of the endowment to support the college’s mission and conflicting with the trustees’ fiduciary responsibility.”
In the ACIR’s response to the two activist organizations, the committee explained its decision, section-by-section, noting that since the college’s endowment is invested in “commingled funds,” rather than direct holdings, avoiding investment in specific businesses would limit the college’s the pool of investment funds and “hinder the endowment’s long-term performance.”
The committee further stated that since there is not a clear definition of companies that “primarily manufacture weapons,” the proposal would create a significant challenge for the college, possibly leading to a “rotating list of excluded businesses.”
“The endowment currently holds no direct investments in weapons manufacturers and is not invested in any defense-sector-specific funds,” the ACIR stated. “The request to screen out companies that ‘have active contracts with countries that have been found by the International Criminal Court to be in violation of human rights’ was also problematic. The ACIR found that the ICC does not find countries, but instead individuals, guilty of such actions, which creates a barrier.”
SJP and AJP responded to the committee’s decision in a written statement this week, in which numerous alumnae expressed their concerns with the college’s rejection of the proposal.
“We need institutions like Smith that shape our youth to take strong stands against military ‘solutions,’” Class of 1960 alum Sherrill Hogen remarked in the written statement. “Violence only produces more violence.”
More recent graduates, such as Clark Geiling, who graduated with the Class of 2020, echoed these remarks, expressing dismay with the ACIR’s decision.
“Every unethical investment, no matter how small, is a pebble on the scales of justice and injustice,” Geiling wrote. “If all of us selfishly decide that investing a few grand here and there in projects that disproportionately harm the most vulnerable in our community and beyond, then we are all working together to uphold the violent power structures that [we] say we oppose.”
Smith spokesperson Carolyn McDaniel responded to the committee’s decision in an email to the Gazette sent Wednesday.
“The Advisory Committee on Investor Responsibility of the Smith College Board of Trustees is charged with ensuring that proposed changes to the college’s investment strategy will generate returns sufficient to meet the college’s mission and support its day-to-day operations,” McDaniel wrote. “After careful review of a request from the Students for Justice in Palestine and Smith Alums for Justice in Palestine to adjust its current investment portfolio, the ACIR has determined that the request did not meet the criteria required to forward it to the board.”
