After SGO referendum, board still votes “no”
https://swarthmorephoenix.com/2017/02/23/after-sgo-referendum-board-still-votes-no/
Categories
Category: Uncategorized
Categories
1991
The Board of Managers adopts the ban on ethical divestment
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
- Divestment from arms manufacturers (2001)
- Divestment from companies involved in the Israeli apartheid state and occupation of Palestine (2009, 2019)
- Ending the ban (2018)
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).
Categories
February 20, 2015
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/
Categories
February 8, 1991
South African apartheid divestment activists return funds held in escrow to Swarthmore
In January of 1986, Swarthmore fined students who occupied the president’s office to demonstrate for divestment from apartheid South Africa. Members of the community helped to pay for the fines and secured a deal with the administration whereby that money would go to an independent account, to be returned to the College only if it fully divested.
Swarthmore agreed to fully divest in March, though it delayed starting the divestment process until 1989.
In February of 1991, Christine Scott ’88 and Anne M. Blackburn ’88, managers of the independent account, donated the funds to the endowment, having felt that Swarthmore had satisfied the terms of the agreement.
Unbeknownst to Scott and Blackburn, the Board of Managers would secretly adopt a policy banning any future divestment that same year (the exact date of the ban’s adoption is unknown). The Board instituted the ban in direct reaction to the South African apartheid divestment campaign.
Would Scott and Blackburn still have donated the money if they knew about the ban?
Categories
February 21, 2017
students vote on a Mountain Justice referendum for partial divestment from fossil fuels
https://swarthmorephoenix.com/2017/02/21/what-will-the-board-do-if-swarthmore-votes-yes-to-divest/
https://swarthmorephoenix.com/2017/02/21/explain-like-im-five-what-exactly-is-partial-divestment/
Categories
October 14, 1993
Swarthmore seeks reinvestment in South Africa following the end of apartheid
In making the case for reinvestment in South Africa, President Al Bloom stated:
“As I expressed to the faculty and to the student body and to the Board, I believe the College should respond to Nelson Mandela’s call to begin again to invest in companies which do business in South Africa. Such a move would both be a visible sign of our support for the constructive directions which are being pursued in South Africa and would free the college to invest in ways it deems most appropriate to fulfilling its fiduciary responsibility to guarantee the best education it can to this and future generations of students. The original decision to divest resulted form a community expression of moral outrage at the Apartheid system and I believe the decision to discontinue that divestment must also be a decision that represents the collective commitment of the the community.”
The ban on ethical divestment makes Bloom’s statement ring hollow. How could Swarthmore claim to “support” the post-apartheid government while maintaining a policy that would have kept the College invested in apartheid? How could the decision to reinvest represent “the collective commitment of the the community” if the community was kept in the dark about a policy banning divestment?