Some feel the University still has an obligation to consider student opinion on how to spend and invest it. And, with the formation of the Advisory Committee on Socially Responsible Investing in March 2000, it seems Columbia has indeed recognized this.

The Advisory Committee, made up of students, alumni, and faculty, advises the University on social and ethical issues that arise in the management of their hefty piggy bank.

It has held two public hearings in the past month, one on October 18th and one on November 1st, to weigh the opinions of the Columbia community on some of the 700 companies in which Alma Mater is a direct shareholder. With this knowledge it can make its Committee recommendations next spring to the Trustees.

Their recommendations concern the investment of the endowment and how Columbia should vote on shareholder resolutions, including "responsibility resolutions" which attempt to change socially and environmentally harmful company practices. These Trustees then sit, discuss, and make their recommendations to the investment managers, who ultimately vote on the shareholder resolutions.

According to Lily Parshall, CC '01, the Columbia College member on the Committee and member of Students for Economic and Environmental Justice (SEEJ, pronounced "siege"), this means the University has recognized that members of the University community have a right to voice their opinions on how our endowment is managed.

"As a university and a non-profit institution, it is supposed to have some system of ethics," said Parshall. "Hopefully the Advisory Committee will keep social and environmental issues in mind when making their recommendations, and the University will vote for the vast majority of its resolutions this year, or at least those most important to the community."

The Columbia College Conservative Club (C4), however, feels that bringing in political issues to discuss the endowment is "inappropriate and damaging." Ron Lewenberg, president of C4, pointed out in a written statement that the "endowment belongs to the University, not the current students."

Lewenberg believes that investments made with causes in mind "are invariably less profitable than profit-maximizing ones." Alumni and companies will balk at contributing money to a fund that is more concerned with saving the world than it is with practical financial management. If students back a policy that will decrease the University's bank account, money will be drained from scholarships and student life improvements, "just so students feel that they have control over corporations," Lewenberg said.

Parshall and SEEJ look to institutions like Harvard, which has had a committee on shareholder responsibility since 1972 and whose trustees take up to 70% of the committee's suggestions.

"Harvard has a huge endowment and huge returns. Huge," emphasized Parshall.

And Columbia is not a complete stranger to such matters. In the 1980s, in response to student protest, the University in the City of New York divested, or un-invested, from companies involved in apartheid South Africa.

Present issues for SEEJers are Columbia's investment in Shittygroup, a.k.a. Citigroup, often criticized for its investment in the Three Gorges Dam Project and for the reputation of Citibank, its subsidiary, for abusive lending practices. Also, they support the World Bank Bond's Boycott (WBBB) against the World Bank, which sells bonds to promote projects that are environmentally and/or socially destructive.

SRI is not a "conservative versus liberal issue" says Lewenberg. But he said he doubts that the groups involved in the movement, the majority of which are left-wing, really give voice to the entire spectrum of students and faculty.

C4 has made their own recommendations to the University at the hearings. They asked Columbia not to invest in those companies that invest in communist countries, make money off of abortions or perform fetal research (some pharmaceutical companies), export American jobs, undermine American values or attack religion (certain media conglomerates), or those companies that work with the United Nations or give privileges to same-sex or other unmarried couples.

Ultimately, what scandalizes Parshall is that to date Columbia has not voted on many of its resolutions or has voted with company management, which rarely adopts responsibility resolutions.