I've heard the notion batted around that Tufts is an almost disturbingly progressive school, and in some respects it's true. We, the members of the student body, are committed to promoting universal human rights and making this world a better place. We believe in a globally equitable response to the recent financial crisis. We are morally outraged at the international community's relative silence on the rising violence in the Congo. We hate the scientists who hurt defenseless rabbits and chimpanzees, and we scoff at anything labeled "conservative" (with the exception of those brave contrarians who work for the Primary Source).
We as a student body are the do-gooders of the world. We are those nice guys and girls who volunteer at elementary schools, raise money for charities and educate ourselves to go out there and be the greatest, most ethical leaders we can be. But when it comes to how our endowment is run, our administration doesn't follow the ethos it preaches to us.
I'd like to believe that the Tufts endowment doesn't own anything it shouldn't. I'd like to believe that we don't support the companies that destroy communities and wreak environmental devastation. But after hearing the story of a few students who tried to reassure themselves of the same thing, I just don't know.
In the midst of the anti-Iraq war movement, a concerned group of students approached the administration with a simple question: Are we investing in companies that are involved in war profiteering? The students' original question then morphed into a broader, progressive movement to make the one-and-a-half-billion-dollar endowment more transparent and socially responsible. After battling through the bureaucracy, they succeeded in forming the Advisory Committee on Shareholder Responsibility (ACSR), composed of faculty members, administrators, graduate students and undergraduates. Together, through research and oversight, they would make sure that Tufts' actions match its rhetoric.
After the fall of 2007, these students came back to school ready to participate in the committee, whose powers were modest at best. The Tufts endowment would remain closed to the public but this advisory committee would be able to make recommendations about proposing and voting on proxy resolutions at companies that Tufts had invested in. These proxy resolutions work about the same as political referendums during election season. So, for instance, if Tufts had invested in an oil company, we could vote on a resolution asking "should we invest in renewable energy technology or just drill baby drill?" If Tufts abstains, however, it's as if we don't care. We are just trying to make sure we make a tidy return off of owning part of the company.
When the brave souls of the ACSR returned in January, they were told that the full committee would not be allowed to continue as previously promised. Tufts' reasoning for not wanting a committee to vote on proxy resolutions, and even more so for not wanting an open endowment, could be either institutional laziness, incompetence or more likely a fear that outside "meddling" in the endowment could hurt the endowment's profits.
Students at Tufts for Responsible Investment (STIR) believes that the actions of the administration and the endowment are part and parcel of who we are as a community. We believe that socially responsible investments are something worth believing in as a possible balance to pure profit maximizing. We believe that the people who run Tufts are capable and compassionate enough to be able to balance the University's needs for a bigger endowment with its self-stated moral obligation to "contribute to the advancement of humanity and improvement of today's global community and environment."
Would STIR's proposal to resuscitate the advisory committee bring financial ruin to the University? No. The currently proposed committee would vote on resolutions that the companies themselves define as irrelevant to profit margins. The committee would say "yes" to investments in alternative energy, to better working conditions and to whatever the Tufts community decides through democratic representation is best for Tufts and the world.
Having endowments act as socially responsible investors has worked before, and more and more colleges and universities are recognizing their moral imperative to do what they can to make the world a better place. Schools with endowments large and small are embracing the idea of socially responsible investments without loosing money because of it. Swarthmore, Williams, Columbia, the University of Pennsylvania and that archetype of irresponsibility and foolishness, Harvard, have all responded to student initiatives and are taking steps to use their endowments more responsibly.
Our beloved President Larry Bacow, in every matriculation address he has given at our school, has emphasized that Tufts is a progressive institution and that we, the student body, have a responsibility to be active citizens in making the world a better place. Well, Bacow, here we are being active citizens and demanding that Tufts do more. I was inspired last year when I heard you tell the graduating seniors, "The world desperately needs people who are willing to think beyond the narrow confines of their own self-interest." I'd like to think most of students have heeded your call, but has Tufts?
--
Alex Marqusee is a senior majoring in economics, and is a member of Students at Tufts for Investment Responsibility (STIR).
