In response to the leak of the university's alleged investment information by the newly established group Jumboleaks on Saturday, the university is not at this time actively pursuing the individual or individuals who disclosed the information, according to Executive Vice President Patricia Campbell.
Jumboleaks released a confidential list of 35 companies in which it purports the university had a direct holding in 2010, citing the dual goals of promoting financial transparency and encouraging investment in socially responsible corporations.
The group did not reveal who provided them with the list.
The university also has no plans, as of yet, to alter either its endowment transparency policy or its investment strategies, Campbell said.
The organization, composed of current and former Tufts students, claimed on its website that the published document represented a complete list of the university's direct investments in the year 2010. Campbell declined to either confirm or deny the authenticity of the leaked information, but she did acknowledge that the university last year possessed direct holdings and this year does not.
Members of the student-composed Advisory Committee on Shareholder Responsibility (ACSR) have access to a password-protected website with a list of the university's direct holdings, Campbell said. This list, she believed, was what was published on the Jumboleaks website.
"[A list of our direct investments] was made available to those handful of students … and it would appear it might have been one of the students that had that password-protected access — [who] chose to share that information rather than keep it confidential," Campbell said.
Relationship with the ACSR
Campbell said that the leak would not alter the university's relationship with ACSR, which the university created in 2007 to allow for greater student input on direct investments. The three undergraduate students who compose ACSR, according to Campbell, are privy only to information regarding direct investments. Because the university currently possesses no direct investments, the body at this time has no access to current investment information.
ACSR members are required to sign a non-disclosure agreement when they assume their positions, a contract that remains in effect post-graduation. Current ACSR member Maggie Selvin, a sophomore, said that no consequences were ever clearly expressed for students found breaking the agreement, though none would ever consider doing so.
"We never had a discussion about it because it was a non-issue," she said. "It's something we do as a sign of respect for the Board [of Trustees], and it was absolutely unquestioned that none of us would ever consider disclosing it."
Gabe Frumkin (LA '10), who was influential in the founding of ACSR and served on the committee for two years, said that the Jumboleaks incident should demonstrate to the university the need to provide the ACSR with additional power as a means of involving students more deeply in investment decisions.
"If the administration is savvy … [it will see] it is a really good time to be a more proactive partner with the ACSR," he said. "Now is a good time to be reminded and to learn that the committee hasn't really helped Tufts yet because the ACSR hasn't had the substantive role that similar organizations at a number of other schools has had."
Martin Bourqui (LA '09), one of the founders of Students at Tufts for Investment Responsibility (STIR) and currently the national organizer for the nonprofit Responsible Endowments Coalition, noted that ACSR lacks the power to influence investment decisions that exists in some similar committees at other universities.The group would benefit from additional authority, he said.
"[ACSR should] make real recommendations about financially secure and ethically sound ways that we can move forward to a more sustainable and just endowment," he told the Daily. "Right now, [ACSR] does not have that power; the Tufts [ACSR] does not have the ability to take action that most other committees in the country do."
Sophomore Kelsea Carlson, another current member of ACSR, said that the group's alleged lack of power was not of concern to them.
"We are restructuring our relationship with the [B]oard as well as our goals, so power is not a relevant concern of ours," she said in an email. "The people we speak with on the Board respect our voices and want to work with us towards common goals, which we're very pleased about."
This year ACSR has shifted its focus to learn more about corporate social responsibility, especially with regard to environmentally responsible investments, according to Carlson.
"Our goal this year has been to pinpoint how exactly we can be most effective working with, rather than in opposition to, the [B]oard," she said. "Therefore, we haven't actually [been] advising them in the way most people understand ACSR, but we believe this new work is equally important."
Selvin said she does not think that Jumboleaks' push for university transparency will in any way impact the university's relationship with ACSR.
"I think that this whole issue is kind of unrelated to the ACSR," she said. "Issues of transparency are not our primary concern; it is neither something we are advocating for nor contrary to our goals."
A push toward transparency
Senior Will Ramsdell, a representative of Jumboleaks, said he recognizes that the leak may have been a setback for the administration's dialogue with students regarding transparency, but he hopes that the incident will raise the student body's awareness of the issue.
"This is not going to help student transparency advocate relationships with the administration, and we understand that," he said. "I am not optimistic that the university will see the need for transparency — however, I am optimistic that the student body will see the need for transparency and that this issue will be incorporated into ongoing dialogue now that it has entered community awareness."
Jumboleaks hopes for transparency in all aspects of university policy and management, not just in the financial sphere, Ramsdell said.
"Fiscal transparency is just one of the ways in which the general transparency argument has come up most frequently because it is something that is obvious," he said. "We clearly see that we need to have transparency in this particular instance."
The university has no plans to make its investment information more publicly available, according to Campbell, citing restrictions imposed by third-party investment mangers as part of the reason for secrecy.
"It's been an issue for a while, this endowment transparency and socially responsible investing, and our Board has considered it a number of times and has had a clear position that — I think for pretty good reasons — this is something that they believe should be handled by our trustee investment committee and our professionals in the investment office," she said. "They have determined that it may not be in the best interest of Tufts to open [investment information] up in a broader way."
Sophomore Caroline Incledon, president of STIR, fears that the Jumboleak incident may have been a step backward for university-student relations.
"It could harm a push for endowment transparency," she said. "We need to [work] in a way that is more respectful and collaborative."
STIR has denied any involvement with the leak.
Some students have stressed that the fact that the list is from 2010 does not make it any less relevant. Frumkin and Ramsdell both emphasized the importance of understanding history, and Ramsdell noted that the university's lack of a clearly articulated shift in philosophy toward investments in the past year makes it likely that the university remains invested in similar corporations, even if now through fund managers rather than through direct holdings.
The lack of public awareness of a change in university investment policies since 2010 is what fuels the student push for transparency, Incledon noted.
"The fact that the list of holdings is outdated is definitely important because Tufts may no longer be invested in these companies, or it may still be invested in these companies," she said. "That uncertainty is what drives endowment transparency movements."
Socially responsible investments
Students and alumni examining the leaked list have expressed disappointment and frustration that the university has invested in companies such as agricultural product producer Monsanto, which has engaged in controversial business practices.
A corporation's commitment to social responsibility is not currently one of the Board of Trustee's priorities when considering where to invest, according to Campbell.
"Now, they're not unmindful. If there was something truly terrible in the world and it was clear that a particular investment was supporting that, I don't think that we would support that," she said. "But it's not something that's a pillar of how they make every investment decision."
The fact that the university no longer maintains direct holdings and instead invests through fund managers creates a "double-blind" system, Frumkin noted, making it even more challenging to examine the social responsibility of the corporations in which the university is invested. He said this does not, however, prevent the university from giving due consideration to the social implications of the university's investments.
"Just because we don't have direct holdings doesn't mean that Tufts couldn't be an active investor if it chose to be," he said. "Tufts would be well advised to think critically about what funds it is invested in; if they are out of line with the university's mission, we should take necessary steps to correct that or reinvest in other areas."
Incledon is hopeful that the leak will encourage more discussion on campus about socially responsible investment.
"I think it will encourage important conversation; people now realize that the endowment has social and political implications," she said. "Many people were unaware of the implications of the endowment investments until they saw what Tufts could be invested in."
