Students for a Socially Responsible Investment Committee (Students for SRIC) made their campaign public yesterday to boycott the senior class gift in protest of the University’s investment decisions.
The group gathered in Reynolds Club around 1 p.m. to kick off their campaign, making the “Senior Class Gift Withholding Pledge” live online for students to sign. They had 179 signatures by late Monday night, 71 of which are from seniors. This is the campaign’s next step after a referendum for SRIC last year gained student support but did not lead to a policy change.
The pledge begins, “The University of Chicago has provided me the opportunity to grow into the thinker and person I am today…but I also know my University is better than its current investment policy.” Signs and buttons at the event echoed that sentiment, displaying slogans like “I love UChicago too much to give.”
Fourth-year Caitlin Kearney, a primary organizer of the campaign, said that the goal is not to hurt the University—according to Kearney, the Senior Class Gift makes up less than .01 percent of the operating budget, not the endowment—but to send a message.
“[Last year], the administration wasn’t as receptive as we hoped they would be,” she said. “Actions speak louder than words. We had to take action that speaks a little bit louder.”
Kearney said the group will continue collecting pledges through graduation and show them to the administration in the hopes that the University will re-evaluate its investment policy.
Because the Senior Class Gift does not affect the money that is actually invested, fourth-year and Senior Gift Committee co-chair Shola Farber pointed out that students can support socially responsible investing while still contributing to the senior class gift.
“These things are not mutually exclusive and in fact, not related,” she said. “It’s possible that people intimately related with SRIC gave to the senior class gift for their own reasons and also take issue with the University’s investment policy.”
Farber also said that since anyone, from first-years to graduate students, can sign the pledge, she suspects the campaign will not have a huge effect on participation. The committee’s goal this year is for 85 percent of seniors to contribute to the class gift, which would exceed the Class of 2010’s record high 81 percent participation rate.
“The goal is participation, not a monetary amount,” she said. “Seniors can give anywhere from a dollar to lots, lots, lots more than that, and they have.”
Even though the gift does not affect the endowment, Kearney said the point is to show that students want to be proud of where their money goes, now and in the future.
“[The Senior Class Gift] encourages a culture of giving in young alumni,” she said. “It matters to us as students and it matters to us as future alumni.”
The campaign is not in support of a particular divestment, though the pledge itself cites investments in Arch Coal and HEI Hotels and Resorts, which the pledge says have respectively violated environmental regulations and workers’ rights. The letter also mentions the University historically refusing to divest from companies connected to apartheid in South Africa and the more recent genocide in Darfur.
The Kalven Report, which guides the University’s neutrality on political issues, has often been used to explain these decisions and preclude the University from using its investments to take a political stance. However, students for SRIC maintain that the campaign is important.
Fourth-year Louis Smith signed the pledge though he is not usually involved in activism on campus. “I find the idea that I indirectly invested in [Arch Coal, HEI, and other companies] offensive,” he said.
Fourth-year Grace Evans added that the prestige of the University should help students when they graduate, but the investment decisions could hurt them in competition with peer institutions. “Our degree from the University gives us a place in society,” she said. “It degrades the value of our degree.”
My University is also better than the inconsequential squawking of the political peanut gallery.
Caitlin Kearney, Michelle Boyd, Louis Smith and Grace Evans have all donated to the 2012 Senior Class Gift (see “honor roll” tab on the Senior Class Gift website: seniorclassgift.uchicago.edu)
Students for SRIC,
Can we get a list of the specific investments that are ethically problematic? It would also be helpful to know (for each company):
1. The specific violations that you take issue with
2. The percentage of the endowment that this investment represents
I think this would help the student body make informed decisions for themselves rather than relying on hearsay.
link to pledge: bit.ly/SCGpledge
Why is starting a protest a requirement for graduation these days?
Caitlin Kearney, Michelle Boyd, Louis Smith and Grace Evans have all contributed to the 2012 Senior Class Gift, as noted in the “Honor Roll” tab of the website seniorclassgift.uchicago.edu Why do these individuals encourage others to boycott senior class gift when they’ve chosen to give themselves?
I think that those who commented regarding the fact that myself and others who are pledging not to give in the future already gave to the SCG make a good point—deciding whether to give or not to give is a complicated one. Speaking for my own experience, I initially gave with the idea that I had a relatively good time here and that giving to SCG is just something that one does. Had I thought more about what my donation was saying—an implicit approval of what the University does with its money—or the message that a concerted pledge to withhold donations could send, I would have done differently.
I know that my donation went to the College Fund, which is not invested. But I also know that the SCG is about sending a message to students about the importance of giving and is meant to encourage a culture of giving among young alumni. I wish that I had used my opportunity to send the University a message that I disagree with the social and environmental harms committed by companies that our endowment is invested in. Last year, over 80% of the voting student body sent this message with a Student Government referendum. Perhaps if students show administration through action rather than telling them through a referendum, the message will be heard.
The purpose of this pledge to withhold donations is to prompt students to think critically about what a donation to the University means and to start the dialogue of what future, non-earmarked donations to the University could be invested in.
As for the University’s investments—much of that information isn’t publically available. The University’s 13F filing, which shows certain asset classes, can be viewed here: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/314957/000031495708000009/0000314957-08-000009-index.htm. While looking over the list (if you do), keep in mind that the University doesn’t even have a mechanism to have a conversation about these companies to determine which, if any, do violate values our University community holds.
Caitlin, thanks for the response. That 13F filing is actually from about 4 years ago and seems to only show the holdings of one fund that the University invested in (in support of your point that not much info is available). There isn’t really much out there on specific holdings because endowments tend to invest through funds and outside managers. Here is more recent breakdown by asset class if it would be helpful to anyone: http://finserv.uchicago.edu/reporting/2011%20UC%20Financial%20Statements%20-%20F-47628CHI.pdf
Is it fair to say that the goal of this movement isn’t really to take issue with any specific investments but rather to get the administration to put in place a system that will screen out any unethical investments in the future?
I’m not very well-versed on how our school stands on this now. How do we know that there is no system in place at the moment? Also, are there any examples of how other schools have dealt with this issue?
Yes, dozens of universities already commit to socially responsible investment. Sixteen of the top twenty colleges have already implemented socially responsible investing. The way it often works is that there’s a socially responsible investment committee (composed of various groups including professors, undergrads, and grad students) that has complete information on university investments. They review investments and decide to divest from companies that have committed violations. Some schools go above and beyond that bare minimum, however. For instance, Dartmouth makes all of its investing information public – you just have to go in person to the right office. This is generally considered to be better, as it increases oversight. All members of the Dartmouth community play a role, and are able to present suggestions to the Socially Responsible Investment Committee.
Most large universities divested from Darfur. A few years back Harvard divested from tobacco companies. But our admin is still blatantly investing in any and all companies, with no regard to their behavior.
For more information, here are some of the policies that other schools have implemented:
http://www.endowmentethics.org/sample-policies
Speaking of non-university funds, there’s already a pretty decent precedent. One of the largest fund in the world (roughly $570 billion USD) has also taken this commitment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway#The_Ethical_Council
How do you know our admin is “blatantly investing in any and all companies, with no regard to their behavior”? If that’s true, I’ve got some stocks I’d like to email Zimmer to invest in…
I was referring to their decision not to divest from either Darfur or South African apartheid. Many corporations maintain a guise of corporate responsibility and therefore dissociate themselves from things like that. But not only did the university maintain its unethical investments, but when it later came time to sell off their investments, admin specifically stated that it was not because of student pressure, but rather because they no longer believed it would maximize their returns.
That’s what’s so blatant about it. Most corporations would say that they were doing it to be socially responsible – admin says the opposite.
You’re absolutely right – unlike previous campaigns focusing on the University’s investments, this campaign focuses instead on the system through which the University invests its endowment. Listing existing and past investments serves to show that this seemingly obscure issue is something that people should be interested in.
So rather than trying to get the University to divest from Arch Coal or HEI, this campaign is about creating a means for the University to evaluate its investment decisions based on the social and ethical standards that it already maintains.
If the University cares about sustainability on campus, why shouldn’t it care about sustainability in the companies it invests in? If it cares about diversity on campus, why not in its investments?
Well said man!
“If the University cares about sustainability on campus, why shouldn’t it care about sustainability in the companies it invests in? If it cares about diversity on campus, why not in its investments?”