Commit to divestment
Divestment is more than just a theory. It has a history of success, such as when institutions around the successfully isolated the South African government in the 1980s to end apartheid. Divestment can work again. This is not a mechanism that will hurt the Sudanese people. The money that would be divested is going to the Sudanese government, which is at war with its own people.
University officials have told the News-Letter that Hopkins does not have investments in Sudan. The University's chief investment officer, Katryn Crecelius, has said, "None of our managers is invested in companies in Sudan, whether in our name or in the fund's name." But, where is the proof to back up this claim?
And yet University officials are careful to say that they have not "made sure" that none of their investments go to Sudan. They should make sure. Now.
The University refuses to release any information about where its money is going. This opacity of the administration's management of the Hopkins endowment is a persistent problem. The Sustainability Institute has already given Hopkins an F on endowment transparency. The Sudan Divestment Task Force has said that it's more than likely that a university of Hopkins's size has indirect links to investments in companies that do business with the Sudanese government, possibly through mutual funds. Still, the University refuses to even conduct a review of its investments. Instead, the administration has openly admitted that it has not even asked the question regarding a policy of divestment.
With this information, how can we just blindly trust the statements of officials on a matter of such moral urgency?
It is irresponsible, and indeed morally reprehensible, for the University to claim that none of its investments go to Sudan without either conducting a comprehensive review of its investments or making the results of such a review available for public inspection. The universities that have taken a lead on divestment have conducted thorough and transparent reviews of their respective investment profiles, identified the violating investments and eliminated them. Hopkins can and should do the same.
University officials have told the News-Letter that Hopkins does not have investments in Sudan. The University's chief investment officer, Katryn Crecelius, has said, "None of our managers is invested in companies in Sudan, whether in our name or in the fund's name." But, where is the proof to back up this claim?
And yet University officials are careful to say that they have not "made sure" that none of their investments go to Sudan. They should make sure. Now.
The University refuses to release any information about where its money is going. This opacity of the administration's management of the Hopkins endowment is a persistent problem. The Sustainability Institute has already given Hopkins an F on endowment transparency. The Sudan Divestment Task Force has said that it's more than likely that a university of Hopkins's size has indirect links to investments in companies that do business with the Sudanese government, possibly through mutual funds. Still, the University refuses to even conduct a review of its investments. Instead, the administration has openly admitted that it has not even asked the question regarding a policy of divestment.
With this information, how can we just blindly trust the statements of officials on a matter of such moral urgency?
It is irresponsible, and indeed morally reprehensible, for the University to claim that none of its investments go to Sudan without either conducting a comprehensive review of its investments or making the results of such a review available for public inspection. The universities that have taken a lead on divestment have conducted thorough and transparent reviews of their respective investment profiles, identified the violating investments and eliminated them. Hopkins can and should do the same.
Be the first to comment on this story