President Ruth Simmons accepted a recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Corporate Responsibility in Investing and rejected the proposal for divestment from Israel set forth by Anti-Racist Action and promoted by a coalition of groups at a protest Feb. 11.
The ACCRI recommended that Simmons reject ARA's proposal for divestment from Israel, all Israeli corporations and any U.S. corporations doing business with Israel, according to a copy of the ACCRI's report provided to The Herald by Marisa Quinn, assistant to the president.
"Members of the ACCRI agree unanimously that the proposed divesture did not meet the standards set in (the ACCRI Charter), and consequently we advise that you do not accept the recommendation for divesture," ACCRI Chair and Professor Emeritus of Environmental Studies Harold Ward wrote in the Feb. 15 document to Simmons.
Quinn confirmed in an e-mail to The Herald that Simmons accepted the committee's recommendation. Simmons' letter to ARA "conveys the University's position on this issue," Quinn wrote in her e-mail.
Ward declined to comment.
ACCRI Charter paragraph 1-e-vii says divestment is appropriate only when it "will likely have a positive impact toward correcting the specified social harm and no other effective means of achieving a positive impact within a reasonable time appears to exist."
The charter, part of the faculty rules and regulations, also says divestment should be recommended "when the company in question contributes to social harm so grave that it would be inconsistent with the goals and principles of the University to accept funds from that source."
In a private letter addressed to ARA member Dara Bayer '08, Simmons explained her decision to accept the ACCRI's recommendation and reject ARA's demands for divestment, Quinn said.
Bayer and ARA, however, refused to provide Simmons' letter to The Herald.
ARA did not have an official comment about the president's decision. Bayer said the group will give its official response and disclose the president's letter early next week.
The group is not disclosing the letter until next week because "(ARA's) specific request (to Simmons) was for a public response, and she hasn't given that to us. By not making a public response, she hasn't been accountable to the Brown community," Bayer said.
On Feb. 7, ARA, the Democratic Solidarity Committee and Brown Alumni for Divestment submitted their demands for the University to divest from Israel and all corporations doing business with Israel.
In a document claiming "Israel = White Supremacy," the groups wrote that "any Zionist - that is anyone equating Jewish identity and heritage with defense of the state and ruling class of Israel - is an accomplice of white supremacy and empire." The document also said the groups would "not relent until the undemocratic institutions on this campus are shaken; we will not stop until our tuition is no longer used to support injustice here and overseas in Palestine."
ARA's demands were forwarded to the ACCRI, which is made up of three students, three elected faculty members and three alums. The ACCRI subsequently submitted its report to Simmons.
Although the ACCRI as a body had no official comment, Zachary Teutsch '05, a student member of the ACCRI, said he personally thinks Simmons made the correct decision in supporting the ACCRI's recommendation.
"The proposal for divesture was imprecise and included the vast majority of Fortune 500 companies that do business in the world," Teutsch said. "Most of those companies are not particularly or directly culpable for any of the problems that exist today. They were asking for the University to divest from hundreds of companies, almost every major company you could think of."
Companies targeted by ARA included were Microsoft, AT&T, Morgan Stanley, General Electric, Time Warner and Royal Crown Cola. ARA also targeted military contractors such as Textron, Raytheon and Caterpillar.
Still, Teutsch applauded ARA's efforts to push the University to be more socially responsible.
"I understand their deep passion and sense of moral purpose. I just disagree on this specific issue and hope that as they spend more time looking into the issues more deeply, they can understand the specific impacts of divestment as a tool," Teutsch said. "In some cases, divesture is absolutely the correct and only moral response. This didn't appear to be one of them."
