Arielle Schwartz                

n October 1985, Columbia University became the first Ivy League school to divest from its holdings in South Africa. The student activist movement at Columbia that culminated in a two-week fast inspired students at other universities to fight for divestment on their campuses. The grassroots movement grew, and eventually a whole slew of large institutional investors in South Africa began divesting, including numerous universities, Wall Street asset managers, and public pension systems.

Fast-forward 20 years. A three-year-old state-sponsored genocide is underway in the Darfur region of Sudan. Deaths number in the hundreds of thousands, and over two million people have been displaced. The conflict has spilled over the border into Chad. African Union troops, present only as “peacekeepers,” lack adequate funding, manpower, resources, and a strong mandate. They are ill-equipped to offer the necessary protection to the vulnerable civilians of Sudan.

Despite the words “never again” echoing in the minds of activists, they feel frustrated and powerless against the international indifference toward the crisis in Darfur. How does one respond in the face of such gross brutality? How can student activists create international leverage to end the genocide? Though they knew the task was a daunting one, student activists at Columbia came together to organize a divestment campaign, understanding that Columbia's $4 billion endowment included their tuition money. And if Columbia invests $5.8 million in companies involved in Sudan, then shouldn't students have a say where that money goes?

The idea behind divestment, in the case of South Africa and currently with Sudan, is both symbolic and literal. If divestment occurs on a large scale, it sends a powerful message to the targeted government: until you change your policies, we will not do business with your country. When a developing nation faces economic isolation and castigation by the world's superpower, they care. Columbia Law Professor Merritt Fox, head of the Columbia University Advisory Committee on Socially Responsible Investing, said, “Influential people in countries don't like to be part of a pariah state.” By reducing the level of foreign direct investment (of which 80 percent goes to the Sudanese government), the cost of capital goes up, making it more difficult to attract new investments and ultimately more difficult to continue their day-to-day operations.

EMILY SETTON

Although the goals of the South African and Sudanese divestment movements are the same, their campaign strategies are markedly different. While the '80s divestment activism echoed the intensity of the '68 demonstrations, the message today is not one of full-scale protest. This time, activists are working within the system to effect change.

The main reason for this decision is the different political and social climate on Columbia's campus. Nowadays, Columbia has an Advisory Committee on Socially Responsible Investing (ACSRI), formed several years ago with the specific intent of advising the Trustees about companies in which they should avoid investing because of their human rights violations. Current activists can work with the ACSRI to help push divestment. Joe Esposito, a business school student and a leader of the movement, said, “The approach from the beginning was very focused on working within the system to try and exert change...There wasn't a need to be protesting with signs; you could go to a meeting with a well-written proposal and say, This is what we think this is why we think it.'”

Because the ACSRI exists, Columbia students interested in changing the way the University invests feel a sense of openness from the University in dealing with these issues. “[We] did not feel the University was opposed to [our] goals,” Esposito said. And both activists and members of the ACSRI seem to agree that the Committee was very receptive to the idea of divestment when the issue was first broached.

But as to whether the receptivity activists felt from the University and the ACSRI was genuine is yet to be determined. After the Columbia University Sudan Divestment Task Force, an ad hoc student group started in the fall of 2005, presented a comprehensive proposal for divestment in Sudan, the ACSRI was then responsible for conducting all the necessary research that would ultimately decide which companies warranted divestment.

The outcome was not as promising as had been expected. In a press release entitled “Statement of Position and Recommendation on Divestment from Sudan,” the ACSRI lays out a comprehensive description of the divestment, the situation in Darfur, and its ultimate conclusion that “divestment...is the most appropriate action.” It goes on to list what it feels are the necessary criteria for divesting from certain companies and the names of those companies it feels fit those criteria. Finally, in the last two paragraphs, it mentions that “Columbia University [holds] none of the above-referenced companies in its public-equity portfolio,” but that it “strongly recommends that these companies be prohibited from future investment.”

The list of companies the ACSRI believed required divestment were companies in which Columbia had no holdings. All that was needed, then, was a pledge not to invest in these companies in the future. Professor Fox claimed that this was pure coincidence: “I think that you should be very clear that we came up with a list without starting with the companies Columbia's invested in...We just [said], 'Let's see what companies are the most important companies playing a role in Sudan,' and it turned out that we didn't have any investments in those.”

Despite the ACSRI's emphasizing that it was all happenstance, the results seem dubious. They lead to questions on not only the motivations and methods of the ACSRI, but also the effectiveness of this preemptive divestment strategy. Emily Setton CC 08, a student leader of the divestment movement and AdHoc contributor, explains, “I do think it's important to keep a list of companies that we shouldn't invest in the future, but that's not the definition of divestment.”

STEPH NELSON

Columbia has over $5.8 million (an amount which is more than the entire endowment of over two thirds of all U.S. private colleges and universities) invested in companies in Sudan that did not make the ACSRI's list (Columbia's list of investments is updated at the end of each fiscal year). The problem, according to the ACSRI, is that more research needs to be done into these companies, because certain ones—such as pharmaceutical companies that benefit the citizens of Sudan—may not warrant divestment. Professor Fox said that the ACSRI is addressing this issue by creating a subcommittee specifically devoted to Sudan divestment that will work with activists to “review to see whether the list we have should be updated and changed. What we imagine is that as long as this crisis continues, that we would have at least an annual review of the list of companies.”

Whether this “review” will simply lead to an extended “don't invest in the future” list or actually prompt Columbia to actively divest from holdings is yet to be seen. It is clear, though, that Columbia has abdicated its position as the leader of socially responsible investing, a standing it proudly held during the divestment movement against South African apartheid. As Setton said, “There have been multiple states and universities that have already taken the step to divest, and the fact that Columbia has not yet done so is shameful.” Columbia is not a leader in this effort it is not even a follower.

Columbia activists will continue to push divestment through working with the ACSRI subcommittee. The essential research into companies not on the current list needs to be conducted by the ACSRI, because in addition to its being a part of its job description, the ACSRI has access to certain databases to which only they are privy. However, activism is still necessary to maintain pressure on the ACSRI and the University by working directly with the subcommittee to expand their scope. In addition, the ACSRI holds an annual Town Hall Meeting in November, at which any individual or group of the University community can speak up and urge the ACSRI to point its research in a particular direction.

The jury is still out as to whether working within the system is an effective strategy. Perhaps aggressively pursuing this approach will actualize substantial benefits, for, as Professor Fox said, “Everything being equal, better that people don't have to engage in hunger strikes and that these things can be discussed...hrough rational discourse.” But if in a few months' time, the cooperative approach isn't strong enough to engender real change, we may be witness to activists turning toward some '68 veterans for counsel.