2008 Woodie Awards
Hidden Sudan investments
Issue date: 5/1/08
Hopkins is virtually alone among prestigious American universities: Out of the "top 15," only Hopkins and CalTech lack a public policy on Darfur. Over 1,000 students have petitioned Hopkins to divest from companies funding the violence in Darfur. Students, alumni, faculty and groups have endorsed "targeted divestment," calling for a portfolio review, corporate engagement and divestment as a last resort.
In a recent interview, President Brody reiterated the administration's case against Sudan divestment: "You can't divest if you don't own anything." Yet the status of Hopkins's Sudan holdings remains uncertain; last year, chief investment officer Kathryn Crecelius ruled out a review of managed funds. If Hopkins has no problematic holdings, then there are few barriers to a targeted restriction of future investment.
JHU STAND's model does not target Coca-Cola or Pepsi, as Dr. Brody implied. The Sudan Divestment Task Force and Calvert maintain rankings of the "worst offending" candidates for divestment. As of April 2008, the list includes PetroChina, Petronas, ONGC, Sinopec, Lundin Petroleum, Aref Investment Group, Petrofac, Dietswell Engineering and KSTB. Consumer goods, agriculture, medicine and education are explicitly excluded. The social cost of Coca-Cola divestment would outweigh any political benefits, as Coke employs Sudanese civilians and provide goods to consumers.
Brody also asked, "Should we invest in companies in Russia or China because they don't promote democracy?" This analogy is problematic; systematic ethnic cleansing and non-democratic governance cannot be compared in terms of urgency, controversy or human suffering. Foreign direct investment (FDI) in China has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. In Sudan, FDI is siphoned to military expenditures, contributing little to civilian employment, infrastructure or health. In this way, Sudan is a rare example of effective targeted sanctions.
Arguments against Sudan divestment echo objections to the ultimately successful South Africa and tobacco divestment campaigns. In the 1980s, the administration and Board of Trustees grappled with the decision to divest from South Africa. Executives argued that Hopkins was not structured to conduct social action or rally a political consensus. Student anti-Apartheid activists advocated "blanket" divestment; there were concerns that such a policy could harm blacks economically. Decision-makers also argued that stock ownership gave the University leverage to influence corporate conduct. Hopkins thus initially engaged companies on the Sullivan Principles, a set of requirements for the equal treatment of black employees. This establishes a clear precedent for engagement of companies operating in Sudan.
In a recent interview, President Brody reiterated the administration's case against Sudan divestment: "You can't divest if you don't own anything." Yet the status of Hopkins's Sudan holdings remains uncertain; last year, chief investment officer Kathryn Crecelius ruled out a review of managed funds. If Hopkins has no problematic holdings, then there are few barriers to a targeted restriction of future investment.
JHU STAND's model does not target Coca-Cola or Pepsi, as Dr. Brody implied. The Sudan Divestment Task Force and Calvert maintain rankings of the "worst offending" candidates for divestment. As of April 2008, the list includes PetroChina, Petronas, ONGC, Sinopec, Lundin Petroleum, Aref Investment Group, Petrofac, Dietswell Engineering and KSTB. Consumer goods, agriculture, medicine and education are explicitly excluded. The social cost of Coca-Cola divestment would outweigh any political benefits, as Coke employs Sudanese civilians and provide goods to consumers.
Brody also asked, "Should we invest in companies in Russia or China because they don't promote democracy?" This analogy is problematic; systematic ethnic cleansing and non-democratic governance cannot be compared in terms of urgency, controversy or human suffering. Foreign direct investment (FDI) in China has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. In Sudan, FDI is siphoned to military expenditures, contributing little to civilian employment, infrastructure or health. In this way, Sudan is a rare example of effective targeted sanctions.
Arguments against Sudan divestment echo objections to the ultimately successful South Africa and tobacco divestment campaigns. In the 1980s, the administration and Board of Trustees grappled with the decision to divest from South Africa. Executives argued that Hopkins was not structured to conduct social action or rally a political consensus. Student anti-Apartheid activists advocated "blanket" divestment; there were concerns that such a policy could harm blacks economically. Decision-makers also argued that stock ownership gave the University leverage to influence corporate conduct. Hopkins thus initially engaged companies on the Sullivan Principles, a set of requirements for the equal treatment of black employees. This establishes a clear precedent for engagement of companies operating in Sudan.
Be the first to comment on this story