In the spring of 2007, following repeated requests that the Tufts endowment be made more transparent, the Board of Trustees authorized an Advisory Committee on Shareholder Responsibility (ACSR), which was to be comprised of undergraduate students, graduate students, faculty and alumni. This group was to be tasked with examining the way in which the endowment was invested and making recommendations to the trustees to avoid unwelcome entanglements in companies and regions of which the student body largely disapproves. At the time, the creation of the ACSR was seen as a welcome addition that would give student input (from graduates and undergraduates) to the Trustees and to provide a window for contributors and alumni into the spending of their donated money.
Today, however, the membership of the ACSR has been whittled down to three undergraduate students after the group was ultimately denied the use of graduate students and faculty advising. Furthermore, these dogged undergraduates have discovered that their recommendations have been ignored since last spring because, according to Patricia Campbell, their input was "not the kind of in-depth research and advice the trustees hoped to see from the students." While we at the Daily have plenty of faith in the ability of the Tufts undergraduate student body to perform in-depth research, we also believe that the ACSR could perhaps have contributed "the kind of in-depth research and advice the trustees hoped to see" had they been allowed to have graduate student or faculty members. If the issue with the group is that their briefings are not professional enough, there is an easy solution: let them liaise with a professional.
To be clear, we at the Daily do not support giving the ACSR the power of veto or even a substantial role in the process of investing the endowment. The trustees are perfectly welcome to ignore the ACSR's recommendations if they so choose, and they probably will. The trustees are professionals who are explicitly tasked with managing the endowment, and the student body has no right to usurp their duties and overrule their expertise. This, we concede. But the administration should at least let the ACSR have a graduate student or a faculty member who is able to explain to the undergraduates what they are seeing and help them to formulate their response.
As it stands, the ACSR is worthless, not only to the trustees, who might at least find their recommendations interesting, but to the three disconsolate undergraduates who make up the diluted and disregarded ACSR, who are getting nothing out of this experience.
Tufts University is dedicated to education; that is, after all, what we are here for. These students are passionate about this issue and motivated to understand and examine it. The administration should encourage that passion and give them the tools they need to develop it.
