The board of trustees’ Investment Committee rejected a recent recommendation submitted by the Committee for Investor Responsibility (CIR) to divest from around 300 companies charged with contributing to or profiting from the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, according to an all-campus email sent by the University on Saturday, Sept. 21. Citing a number of factors, including technical roadblocks and the political nature of the recommendation, the Investment Committee recommended that the Wesleyan board reject the proposal.

“Today, Wesleyan’s Investment Committee informed the Board of Trustees that it had considered and rejected a proposal from the Committee for Investor Responsibility for divestment of the University’s endowment from companies that supply services, equipment, or weapons to Israel,” the email, signed by the Chair of the Board of Trustees Phoebe Boyer ’89 P ’19 ’23, Chair of the Investment Committee Andrew E. Vogel ’95, and President Michael Roth ’78, read. “The Board approved the work of the Investment Committee.”

Although not a new movement, divestment—the act of selling off investments or assets, often for ethical or political reasons—has become a highly discussed issue since the beginning of the internationally sanctioned Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank and the Israel-Hamas War. With divestment votes set to be discussed in board meetings and financial offices at universities across the country, many are caught in the same discussions over the practicality and morality of divestment.

“Wesleyan is not alone in its examination of divestment, and large, prestigious universities including San Francisco State University, Trinity College of Dublin, Trinity College of the University of Cambridge, and MIT have begun divestment processes from specific companies or research collaborations,” the CIR wrote in a statement to The Argus. “These universities show that divestment is possible.”

However, some in academia have accused the larger Boycott Divest Sanction (BDS) movement of antisemitism, including a trustee at Brown University, who recently resigned in protest of a divestment vote brought to the university’s board.

The decision to reject the divestment proposal follows a weekend of student protests surrounding the board of trustees meeting on Saturday, Sept. 21, including one on that day which was attended by over 100 people, including participants from outside the University community.

The CIR was revived under the agreement reached on May 18 between University administrators and Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) activists, which disbanded the Palestinian Solidarity Encampment before the end of the 2023–2024 school year. The CIR is composed of seven students, two faculty members, two staff members, two alumni, and one non-voting member from the Wesleyan Investments Office. On Aug. 15, the committee submitted a proposal recommending divestment after a summer of meetings and brainstorming sessions held on Zoom. 

“The CIR, in consultation with various university constituencies, will forward a proposal to the Investment Committee at their earliest Fall convening,” the agreement reads. “The Board of Trustees commits to a vote on the resulting proposal as early as their September 22, 2024 meeting.”

At the beginning of the school year, the Investment Office sent a letter—signed by Vogel, Chief Investment Officer Anne Martin, and Deputy Chief Investment Officer Jon Farrar—to the board of trustees’ Investment Committee on Wednesday, Sept. 4, recommending that the board reject the CIR’s proposal for divestment. According to the Investment Office letter, a representative from the CIR was given 15 minutes to defend the divestment proposal while a representative from a group of student activists opposing the proposal was given 10 minutes to present their case to the board of trustees at a meeting on Friday, Sept. 13.

After consideration, the Investment Committee rejected the proposal during its meeting on Sept. 21, listing a number of concerns regarding the CIR’s divestment recommendation, ranging from the impracticality of divestment itself to the possible repercussions on the financial longevity of the endowment.

“Adopting a strategy that requires divesting from an ever-changing list of companies depending on changing political conditions—the proposal recommended divestment from approximately 300 companies—would be impractical and irresponsible,” the all-campus email addressing the results of the board’s decision reads. 

Outside firms and fund managers are largely responsible for managing the complex investment mechanisms used by the University’s endowment fund, which often is not held in individual stocks. Because of this, the Investment Office expressed doubt in its letter to the board of trustees that these independent managers could navigate the bounds of divestment and expressed concern at politicizing the endowment. 

“The Wesleyan endowment is a crucial financial resource that should not be treated as a political football,” the Investment Office letter reads.

 

The all-campus email from Boyer, Vogel, and Roth reiterated the concerns raised by the Investment Office, including the argument that the Socially Responsible Investment (SIR) policy is already effective.

“The University does not own individual public securities and almost exclusively hires third party managers who are approved by the Investment Committee and must meet the ethical criteria described in the socially responsible investing section, adopted in 2015, of our Investment Policy Statement, and it will continue to do so,” the all-campus email reads.

The Investment Office emphasized its responsibility to the University and its future, arguing that the proposed divestment protocol would unnecessarily hinder growth.  

“We have a fiduciary responsibility to the institution and to those alumni who have entrusted us with their contributions,” the Investment Office letter reads. “This responsibility extends over a multigenerational horizon, requiring us to manage the endowment with prudence.”

The CIR responded to these claims by stating that its guidelines for investment were based on agreed-upon ethical standards outlined by the University’s SIR policy. 

“While these are arguably moral rather than political criteria, we are concerned that the line between these two concepts is fuzzy and unclear, and that opposition to ‘politicizing’ Wesleyan’s investments represents an arbitrary criterion intended to reject any divestment proposal out of hand,” the CIR wrote in its statement to The Argus. 

Despite the rejection of its most recent proposal, the CIR confirmed that it would continue to evaluate the ethics of the University’s investment strategies.

“The CIR will continue to evaluate the socially responsible investment landscape, and will continue to make recommendations to the Board as such,” the CIR wrote.

Many students, including some who hold positions on the CIR, were dismayed by what they see as a rejection of the principles of divestment.

“It seems to me that Wesleyan is trying to more officially protect their money-making apparatus from any and all future moral interrogation,” CIR member Zoe Hecht ’26 said. “We should all be concerned about this move.”

Other members of the University community have criticized the Investment Committee’s decision. Faculty for Justice in Palestine (FJP) called the proposal representative of the overall campus climate and accused the Investment Committee of evaluating the technical obstacles to divestment in poor faith.

“FJP condemns the September 22 Board of Trustee vote against divesting the University’s endowment from companies that profit from Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian and Syrian Territory,” FJP wrote in a statement to The Argus. “We support the divestment proposal submitted by the Committee for Investor Responsibility, which we note was already a compromise position in that it did not call for full divestment from all Israeli companies.” 

The CIR reaffirmed the importance of community dialogues regarding future discussions surrounding ethical investment.  

“The CIR acts as a representative advisory body for the university community in this regard, and as such community engagement is integral to our committee’s function,” the CIR wrote. “We fervently remind students, faculty, alumni, and staff at Wesleyan that they may submit petitions, ask questions, and air grievances to the CIR if they feel that there is a pressing investment concern. We ask to hear from you.” 

 

Miles Craven can be reached at mcraven@wesleyan.edu.