In a Friday afternoon meeting with Students for Ending the War in Iraq (SEWI), President Michael Roth committed to discussing the possibility of divesting from weapons contractors with the Board of Trustees when they convene on Nov. 16.

“I think we could have a conversation,” Roth said. “I think [the Board of Trustees] will listen—I’ll make sure that that happens. And at least you’ll get a fair hearing from the people who are much more involved in the University’s investments than I am.”

Ultimately, a decision regarding divestment would rest upon the shoulders of the Board of Trustees. In the meeting, Roth said that he wanted to further research divestment before taking an official stance, but at the same time, was willing to facilitate SEWI’s efforts.

Raytheon and General Dynamics—the two corporations from which SEWI members want the University to divest—are the world’s fifth and sixth largest defense contractors, according to DefenseNews.com, an independent news resource that covers defense issues. Raytheon mainly builds “Bunker Buster” bombs and missiles, while General Dynamics primarily focuses on warships, tankers and ammunition.

SEWI claimed that weapons contractors are motivated to continue war, which is the major source of their income—96 percent of Raytheon’s and 78 percent of General Dynamic’s revenue come from defense contracts.

“We want to divest, not only because of the war, but because our investment endorses and supports a system that creates wars like the war in Iraq,” SEWI member Erik Rosenberg ’08 said.

The anti-war group wants the University to divest from Raytheon and General Dynamics permanently. This particular divestment campaign, therefore, is not only a protest against the Iraq War, but also against the corporations that perpetuate and encourage war, according to SEWI.

In addition to requesting that Roth open up a conversation about divestment, SEWI members asked the President to make information available on the specifics of the University’s investments. The exact amount of money invested in Raytheon and General Dynamics, as well as the University’s shareholder voting records, have not been released to the public.

“Although our arguments for divestment stand on their own, having more information concerning Wesleyan’s investment policies and how much Wesleyan has invested in weapons contractors would help create a more informed debate between us and the administration,” said Rosenberg.

During a 15-minute presentation on the case for divesting, SEWI members told Roth that investing in and profiting from weapons contractors did not fit in with what they called the University’s “commitment” to social responsibility and justice.

“Wesleyan prides itself on being a socially responsible institution,” said Hannah Dreier ’08. “We don’t think that these investments mesh with that image.”

Dreier argued that many students are frustrated with this contradiction, citing the April 29 WSA resolution, that calls on the University to divest from weapons contractors until the American withdrawal from Iraq. She also mentioned SEWI’s 800-signature petition for divestment as further evidence.

Although SEWI members applauded the University’s commitment to socially responsible programs, they expressed concern about the sources of funding.

“We can’t deny where our money is coming from,” Lucas Guilkey ’10 said, referring to University funding likely borne out of investments in Raytheon and General Dynamics.

SEWI members also told Roth that the University’s investments in General Dynamics and Raytheon render the school complicit in what they described as the weapon contractors’ perversion of American democracy.

“Part of the criteria for the decision to divest from these companies is their close political ties to this government, which is demonstrated by the millions of dollars spent in lobbying during the lead up to and continuation of the war, as well as the revolving door between senior government officials and the executives of these companies,” Guilkey said.

Roth wondered how much consideration should be given to each individual investment.

“One of the things I’ll be asked by the investment folks is, ’Do we want to run a political test on all investments?’” he said.

Critics claim that divesting from weapons contractors as a statement is a futile move. When students from Harvard pushed for divestment from weapons contractors in 2003, a Crimson editorial stated that divesting was simply a “feel-good” measure.

Others divestment critics say that divesting from weapons contractors opens up a subjective conversation on the moral ambiguity of other investments, and that anti-war efforts should be focused upon the current administration, not weapons contractors.

SEWI’s push for divestment is not unique. Student anti-war groups at many colleges are attempting to engage their respective administrations in a discussion about the implications of investmenting in weapons contractors.

According to Rosenberg, however, of all colleges invested in weapons contractors, Wesleyan is the furthest along in its campaign.

Modeling their proposal after one drafted by a pro-divestment student group frp, Columbia University, SEWI hopes to have a document outlining the case for divestment ready to hand out to trustees when they come to campus this Friday.