What do Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Swarthmore, Barnard, Brown, Smith, Stanford, Vassar and Williams have in common? All of these universities have established committees on shareholder responsibility who have access to university investment activities. Just how large are these institutions' endowments? $18.8 billion, $11 billion, $4.35 billion, $930 million, $129 million, $1.46 billion, $1.24 billion, $8.61 billion, $547 million and $1.08 billion, respectively. Why isn't Tufts a part of this group of progressive, successful, responsible and to be frank, wealthy, institutions? Beats me.
The idea of socially responsible investing (SRI) was championed in the 1970s by three Yale professors who authored a book entitled "The Ethical Investor" (1972). They state that, "the 'moral minimum' of the shareholder to take such action as he can to prevent or correct corporate social injury extends to the university when it is a corporate shareholder." The impetus for the sudden swelling in interest stemmed from the discovery that universities may have had holdings in companies operating in apartheid South Africa. Even here at Tufts, students rallied against this tacit support of racism. Today, their work for divestment from South Africa is memorialized in pictures in Hotung Café and Tisch Library.
The conflict over investing in South Africa may have subsided, but the importance of SRI has only grown over the years. Barrons, The Financial Times and the Quarterly Journal of Economics have all commented that not only does SRI enact positive change, but it also "makes bank."
In the spirit of SRI, committees have been created at the aforementioned institutions to provide recommendations to the universities on how they should vote on a variety of important and far-reaching issues in regards to the companies the universities are invested in. As a major shareholder, a university has the power to vote on resolutions that corporations publish annually. Frequently, these resolutions deal with issues concerning the environment and climate change; women's rights; labor rights; lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender discrimination; and much more. The committees at these various institutions have the power to research these issues thoroughly, make sound recommendations regarding the vote of the university and to represent the opinion of the university community.
Currently, the only attempt our administration has made toward SRI is to create a disenfranchised Advisory Committee on Shareholder Responsibility (ACSR), whose members have been forced to sign non-disclosure agreements; this prevents them from communicating with the community that they serve to represent. This also bars them from utilizing the resources that Tufts has to offer to inform their own research, by the way of professors, staff and other students.
The "committee" consists of three undergraduates, working incredibly hard to research the background behind each resolution that passes in front of them in an attempt to make responsible decisions about the companies in which Tufts currently invests. The ACSR as a body is blatantly ignored; their input is not taken seriously, their concerns are overlooked and the community they serve to represent is grossly uninformed about the activities of Tufts' endowment. Despite a Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate resolution from April 2008 supporting the strengthening of the ACSR, the administration has continued to retain the flawed set-up.
What is the answer? Empower the ACSR. This is the body that is supposed to represent the Tufts community; it is the body that is supposed to make recommendations to the Board of Trustees, which are respectfully considered; it is the body that is supposed to serve as a space for dialogue between the student body and the administrators who invest the endowment.
How will this happen? The ACSR needs to be expanded to contain representatives from all the constituencies on campus, including graduate students, faculty, staff and alumni. The committee needs to be free from the non-disclosure agreements that currently inhibit any proper dialogue on the subject of the Tufts endowment. As an expression of community solidarity, a resolution was unanimously passed just this past week by the TCU Senate supporting the ACSR and the elimination of the non-disclosure agreements. Most importantly, the input of this body must be considered in the decision-making process of the university's governing bodies.
Opportunities for positive change are literally slipping through our fingers as Tufts continually abstains from voting on important resolutions on which we have the right to vote. Tufts could be using its huge institutional clout to vote on resolutions that have real-life implications for the environment, labor groups and other issues which the Tufts community deems important. Instead, we are sitting back and letting each occasion pass us by. The ACSR would not be advising the administration on issues, which would affect the endowment's bottom line; instead, they would advise the administrators on issues which affect a moral "bottom line."
This is a "multi-issue issue," meaning that from whatever angle you view it, positive change could be made. Whether you approach SRI through the lens of greater oversight, women's issues, discrimination policies or anything else, the strengthening of the ACSR would result in a forum of discussion where these issues could be dealt with. Tufts could use its enormous power as a multi-million dollar investor in many companies to vote in a morally sound and responsible manner.
I'm tired of not knowing how the university's endowment is being spent. I'm tired of not having a place to voice my concerns regarding the investment activities of Tufts University. So why hasn't Tufts joined the ranks of Harvard, Yale, Columbia and so many others? Beats me.
--
Danielle Pfaff is a senior majoring in clinical psychology. She is a founding member of Students at Tufts for Investment Responsibility (STIR).
