The CIR has seen the Board of Trustees’ recent decision to not divest from assets associated with Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine, and respects their right to reject the divestment proposal that was sent to them on Aug. 15. The CIR understands that the proposal, and the Board of Trustees’ decision, are each divisive in their own way, and that some members of the Wesleyan community will approve of one while others will approve of the other. We believe that investment proposals from the CIR—as a representative body of various university constituencies—are integral to the protection of an ethical investment process at Wesleyan, and that a renewed commitment to democratic process is important to maintaining a strong tradition of ethical investment at Wesleyan. The CIR thanks the Board of Trustees, the Investments Office, and the Administration for their cooperation and assistance throughout this process. We especially appreciate the Investment Committee’s detailed memo explaining their rejection of the CIR’s proposal.

Nevertheless, the CIR is disappointed that the Board of Trustees chose not to address the alternative divestment suggestions listed in the proposal. The CIR strongly believes that notwithstanding the Investment Committee’s judgment that the CIR’s proposal was impractical, we believe that the alternative suggestions merited consideration, especially in light of the plainly visible grave social harm that the state of Israel is enacting on Syrians, Palestinians, and now Lebanese.

The Board’s email to campus on Friday stated that “The CIR itself could not reach unanimous agreement on the proposal with alumni and staff members voting against it and subsequently resigning rather than being associated with the committee’s work.” The Investment Committee’s memo notes that four former members of the CIR objected to “the process through which the proposal was written, edited, and voted on”, and implied that they resigned for this reason. It is important to take into account that the four members of the CIR who resigned in protest of the proposal were the only four who were appointed by the administration, as opposed to being selected by elected representatives of their respective constituents. In effect, these resignations represent one arm of the Board of Trustees (the administration) talking to itself. What the resignations tell us is that the method of appointing CIR members requires an appropriate revision, one featuring a transparent democratic process to determine committee membership. The administration selecting members of the CIR constitutes a conflict of interest, one which defeats the foundational purpose of the CIR (to bring perspectives from the university community that would otherwise not be heard by the Board of Trustees).

The Board’s rejection of divestment was also based in part on the idea that the CIR was using “political” criteria in making its recommendation. We strongly believe that the CIR was following the existing socially responsible investment policy very carefully when we made our recommendation. The bar set forth by the SRI is social injury, as defined in the seminal work The Ethical Investor: “The injurious impact which the activities of a company are found to have on consumers, employees or other persons; particularly including activities which violate or frustrate the enforcement of rules of domestic or international law intended to protect individuals against the deprivation of health, safety, or basic freedoms.” 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 Board of Trustees also makes the case that there is no easy way to divest given the existing structure of Wesleyan’s investments (in which Wesleyan invests indirectly through money managers and does not directly control any funds). There is no way to enact an ethical form of investment without the possibility for ethical divestment as a necessary counterpart. Without the lever of possible divestment, Wesleyan has no functional tool within its own investment guidelines through which it could reduce or eliminate involvement in unethical companies or industries, a fact which should be concerning to anyone with interest in the integrity of this university.

The Board of Trustees similarly makes the case that the existing SRI policy—in which the Investments Office vets potential money managers for ethical practices—is working as intended, as evidenced by the fact that there is limited to no investment in any of the companies the CIR recommended for divestment. Yet even if the university has no existing investments in any of these companies, it has no safeguards against any of its money managers investing in any one of these companies tomorrow or the next day. Instead, the existing SRI policy includes no checks and balances upon the operation of the Investments Office, instead asking the university community to accept their vision of ethical investment based on trust alone. We do not doubt the good faith of those working in the Investments Office, but their decisions and actions should not be conducted without oversight and the involvement of representatives of the broader Wesleyan community. In the coming months, one aim of the CIR will be to examine the existing SRI policy with an eye toward recommending an update to Wesleyan’s general investment policies, an update that is much needed given the significant changes which have indeed been made in Wesleyan’s investment strategies over the past 15 years.

There is one final omission from the Board of Trustees’ consideration of the CIR’s recommendation to divest: the issue of Palestine. While the CIR’s proposal details the atrocities and violations of international law that are currently being committed by the Israeli government, the Board chose to completely ignore and not even mention the fundamental issue bringing this issue to their attention. The CIR asked that the Board of Trustees make clear their position on this issue precisely because not everyone agrees on the ethics as to what is happening in the occupied territories. We wish to express our disappointment that the Board chose not to make its position on this fundamental issue clear.

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. These universities show that divestment is possible. The CIR will continue to evaluate the socially responsible investment landscape, and will continue to make recommendations to the Board as such. Despite our disagreement with the Board of Trustees on these points, we respect their right to disagree. The expression of opposing viewpoints is foundational to democratic respect, and we feel that the investment process needs more democratic participation of this sort, not less. 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. 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 Horner, on behalf of the Committee for Investor Responsibility.

Miles Horner is a member of the class of 2026 and can be reached at mhorner@wesleyan.edu.