In response to the CDFI proposal, President Zimmer said that this would fall under the responsibility of [incoming] VP [of Civic Engagement Derek] Douglas, and that we should talk to him when he arrives in January. Similarly, he noted that the motivation behind the proposal was in line with how the University is approaching its engagement with the community.
All in all, I have high hopes for these proposals. I think both proposals address student concerns about how the University invests the endowment, and they offer solutions that are feasible and allowable by the Kalven report.
While it’s heartening that both proposals appear to have a chance of moving forward, there is an argument to be made that they betray the spirit of the original SRIC movement that produced a successful ballot referendum last spring. What do you think? Are the new proposals a concession of defeat, or a legitimate strategy toward introducing a dash of social responsibility to the university’s investment policies? In any case, the change in Singh’s strategy highlights the immense role of the Kalven report in shaping the administration’s thinking on issues that even loosely connect to academic freedom.