Swarthmore rejects the student referendum demanding an end to the 1991 ban
https://www.swarthmore.edu/news-events/response-to-investment-policy-referendum
Swarthmore rejects the student referendum demanding an end to the 1991 ban
https://www.swarthmore.edu/news-events/response-to-investment-policy-referendum
Swarthmore celebrates the success of shareholder activism and offers a revisionist history of the ban
fossil fuel industry lobbying group praises Swarthmore for refusing to divest
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/3/swathmore-college-rejects-divesting-from-fossil-fu/
https://swarthmorephoenix.com/2015/09/24/giving-a-gold-star-for-all-the-wrong-reasons/
Administration threatens students with probation and fines for Feb sit-in
Swat’s “justification” https://swarthmorephoenix.com/2017/03/23/40393/
Faculty vote in favor of fresh divestment proposal
https://swarthmorephoenix.com/2015/04/23/faculty-vote-divestment/
Know the Ban, Ban the Ban II
https://swarthmorephoenix.com/2021/03/19/know-the-ban-ban-the-ban-ii-duplicitous-ban/
Mountain Justice calls for an escalation of the fossil fuel divestment campaign
https://swatoverlaps.wordpress.com/2013/11/02/volume-8-issue-1/
https://swarthmorephoenix.com/2013/04/19/op-ed-no-more-business-as-usual/
Have this acompanying doc: https://swatmountainjustice.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/fossil-fuel-divestment-101_may-2013.pdf
After SGO referendum, board still votes “no”
https://swarthmorephoenix.com/2017/02/23/after-sgo-referendum-board-still-votes-no/
The ban, part of the endowment fund’s “Statement of Investment Objectives and Policies,” states: “As a matter of policy, the Investment Committee manages the endowment to yield the best long term financial results, rather than to pursue other social objectives.”
Students involved in the fossil fuel divestment campaign began referring to this policy as “the ban” after the Board repeatedly cited it to dismiss their demands. The Board has also used the ban to block other campaigns, including
Little public information about the ban and its adoption exists. The date of the ban’s adoption is not known. The Board did not offer a rationale for instituting the ban because it did so in secret. Even the investment policy which contains the ban is not publicly available.
Almost everything known publicly about the ban comes from explanations of the policy by administrators and Board members. Those explanations are short on details and sometimes contradictory.
(find more swat sources about this b/c, of course, the ban itself isn’t available nor is contemporary sources about its adoption).
faculty deliver a letter in support of divestment to the Board signed by 92 professors
https://swatmountainjustice.wordpress.com/category/press-feed/page/2/
http://www.swatmj.org/2015/02/20/faculty-deliver-open-letter-to-board-signed-by-92-faculty/amp/