National Opinion

Money talks. It brags, it bargains and it buys. But it can also make a statement; it can set an example. And setting that example can have global consequences. The University of California, with its vast resources in many different nations, can send a powerful message to governments committing crimes against their own people.

That’s part of what UC students demanded of the university in the day-long Darfur Fast Thursday: To divest the stocks it owns in companies supporting Sudan’s economy—all in all worth around $66 million, according to former UC Treasurer for Investments David Russ. Doing so would condemn the government-sanctioned human rights violations in Darfur in the most effective way possible.

Since 2003, African tribal groups in the western region of Sudan have suffered through a coordinated campaign to remove them from Darfur. The Janjaweed, militias drawing power and support from Sudan’s government in Khartoum, have poisoned their victims’ water supplies, pillaged crops and exterminated whole villages. About 400,000 people have been killed and more than two million displaced from their homes. According to a U.N. mortality assessment in June, 6,000 people continue to die every month—a number that reflects only the areas the United Nations can access. The staggering death toll may be attributed to the efficiency of the Janjaweed and their coordination with Khartoum—often, the government will supplement the militia’s movements on the ground with air strikes. And in spite of these crimes against humanity, UC still holds stocks in companies that support the Sudanese economy. But in the face of this genocide, the university must take a stand against these atrocities and eliminate its ties to Sudan.

UC would not be the first to do so. Harvard set the precedent in April when it withdrew $4.4 million from PetroChina Company Limited, whose parent company had contributed more than $1 billion to the Sudanese government. Stanford followed suit in June when a student group made its case to the university’s Advisory Panel on Investment Responsibility…
Stanford then divested all directly held investments in four companies connected to Sudan.

Two of the most prestigious private schools on the east and west coast have made a statement. Why hasn’t UC?

Unlike Stanford, UC does not assume social responsibility for the causes its money supports. The UC Board of Regents is practically-minded—investments are made solely on a financial basis, according to UC spokesperson Trey Davis. Secondly, its investment in the Russell 3000 index fund makes it difficult to divest from Sudan—the $66 million in the fund is tied to investments of billions more.

Of course, this may be because they haven’t actually tried. The regents have yet to consider the issue of divestment in spite of multiple pleas to do so. In May, the UC Divestment Taskforce even recommended consulting with the Conflict Securities Advisory Group to work to devise a feasible plan for divestment. No response on that yet.

However, it wouldn’t be the first time UC made an impact with its portfolio. In 1986 the university divested $3.1 billion in stocks in South Africa in protest of apartheid. Four years later, South Africa began dismantling its legal code. Social responsibility may not be an entirely alien concept to the regents.

The move to divest would require a lot of time, effort and careful planning on UC’s part. They would need to map out a long term plan to sever its ties with Sudan-related stocks—Harvard only dealt with $4 million in one go. They would also have to consult with either student groups or outside consultants to determine which stocks to target and how to go about divesting. And aside from the financial concerns, it would have to avoid impacting those companies in the southern region of Sudan, which has been showing signs of peace and prosperity in recent months. All this is more than possible—Stanford did so within a mere three months after working with a student group that carefully analyzed and presented the stocks from which to withdraw.

Just as the university refused to stand by while the South African government oppressed its people, the scale and severity of the crimes in Darfur cannot be ignored any longer. UC saw its social responsibility then, and there is no reason to shirk it now.