2008 Woodie Awards
Hidden Sudan investments
Issue date: 5/1/08
The Public Interest Investment Advisory Committee (PIIAC) played a major role in the decision to divest, advising the Board of Trustees on the conduct of companies operating in South Africa. PIIAC, a group of six students, five faculty members, and two administrators, was formed in 1972 to advise trustees on socially responsible investment. Hopkins's divestment resolution acknowledged that investment is a tacit social position; stock ownership in a company is a kind of implied consent of business practices. By the mid '80s, many firms had already left South Africa for economic and political reasons. Hopkins thus selectively divested from companies that would not phase out operations in South Africa.
Until 1991, tobacco stocks comprised 1.5 percent of Hopkins's investment portfolio. In 1990, PIIAC advised the Board of Trustees to divest tobacco holdings, arguing that divestment would "give new meaning" to Hopkins's mission to improve human health. The Board of Trustees subsequently formed an ad-hoc Committee on Tobacco Stock Divestment to evaluate the proposal. Hopkins's divestment deliberations provoked a high-level response from tobacco firm Philip Morris (PM). Internal documents indicate that PM worked to "contain and interdict" divestment at Hopkins. PM talking points cited the "slippery slope," moral relativism, tobacco contributions to research and returns from tobacco stock. If divestment is futile and ineffective, why did tobacco firms react so strongly?
The Committee on Tobacco resolved that tobacco stock ownership was "incompatible with the University's mission," and that divestment would "ensure compatibility of the actions of Johns Hopkins with its public position." Trustees were concerned that divestment would set a precedent for other social issues, and that Hopkins would be perceived as dictating social policy. The Committee thus recommended that divestment be "carried out quietly," with no press release or disclosure of company names. Similarly, today's administration may be concerned that divestment from Chinese oil firms may threaten the Hopkins/PRC partnership in Nanjing. It is also possible that Hopkins has "silently" divested from Sudan, consistent with the Board's policy on tobacco.
The genocide in Darfur is uniquely urgent, uniquely tied to foreign investment and uniquely susceptible to sanctions and international scrutiny. For these reasons, the Investment Office should substantiate claims of no Sudan holdings. The Board of Trustees should publicly restrict investments in complicit firms until humanitarian criteria are met. The administration should institutionalize genocide studies through an endowed lecture series or fund for undergraduate humanitarian projects. President Brody is positioned to galvanize these actions prior to his departure in December.
Until 1991, tobacco stocks comprised 1.5 percent of Hopkins's investment portfolio. In 1990, PIIAC advised the Board of Trustees to divest tobacco holdings, arguing that divestment would "give new meaning" to Hopkins's mission to improve human health. The Board of Trustees subsequently formed an ad-hoc Committee on Tobacco Stock Divestment to evaluate the proposal. Hopkins's divestment deliberations provoked a high-level response from tobacco firm Philip Morris (PM). Internal documents indicate that PM worked to "contain and interdict" divestment at Hopkins. PM talking points cited the "slippery slope," moral relativism, tobacco contributions to research and returns from tobacco stock. If divestment is futile and ineffective, why did tobacco firms react so strongly?
The Committee on Tobacco resolved that tobacco stock ownership was "incompatible with the University's mission," and that divestment would "ensure compatibility of the actions of Johns Hopkins with its public position." Trustees were concerned that divestment would set a precedent for other social issues, and that Hopkins would be perceived as dictating social policy. The Committee thus recommended that divestment be "carried out quietly," with no press release or disclosure of company names. Similarly, today's administration may be concerned that divestment from Chinese oil firms may threaten the Hopkins/PRC partnership in Nanjing. It is also possible that Hopkins has "silently" divested from Sudan, consistent with the Board's policy on tobacco.
The genocide in Darfur is uniquely urgent, uniquely tied to foreign investment and uniquely susceptible to sanctions and international scrutiny. For these reasons, the Investment Office should substantiate claims of no Sudan holdings. The Board of Trustees should publicly restrict investments in complicit firms until humanitarian criteria are met. The administration should institutionalize genocide studies through an endowed lecture series or fund for undergraduate humanitarian projects. President Brody is positioned to galvanize these actions prior to his departure in December.
Be the first to comment on this story