Johns Hopkins has no plans to join the more than 50 universities that have formally divested from Sudan, despite a bloody ethnic conflict in that country's Darfur region that has killed at least a quarter of a million people.
As the international community increases its pressure on the Sudanese government to end what human rights groups and the United States government have called the "genocide" in Darfur, colleges and universities across the country have pulled their investments from companies that do business in Sudan.
Although Hopkins claims it has no investments in Sudan, it has not adopted a formal policy banning such investments on ethical grounds, nor has it made information regarding such investments public.
"The fact that we were not invested in those companies is not based on a decision-making process of the social responsibility of those investments," O'Shea said.
"The University's belief is that there is no financial incentive to invest in the companies doing business in Sudan. Given that fact, there is no need to even discuss the question of whether investments in those companies are a good or a bad idea for other reasons," he said.
When certain companies were first identified several years ago as doing business in the region, the University looked back to see if it had investments in any of those companies.
But at no point has Hopkins ever made it official University policy to ensure that its investments ?- through mutual funds or other means - do not go to companies that do business in Sudan based on social responsibility.
"We just haven't asked and answered that question," O'Shea said.
In the 1990s, the University did make it an official policy that none of its investments would go to tobacco companies, but it has made no such effort regarding Sudan.
"With a university of that size, there will be links to those investments [in Sudan]. There are probably no direct holdings, but there could be indirect ones through mutual funds," said Max Croes, advocacy associate with the Sudan Divestment Task Force (SDTF), a project of the Genocide Intervention Network.
"It's very ethically reprehensible to continue," said Aaron Martel, director of the JHU Students Taking Action Now: Darfur (STAND) divestment campaign.
The campaign is one of many national efforts focusing on targeted divestment, also known as selective divestment.
Martel hopes the campaign will force the University to divest from companies that the SDTF views as having financial ties to the region. Hopkins could then re-invest the money in more acceptable sources while still yielding reasonable returns.
"We're not making any extreme fringe demands," he said.
Still, the University will not take a position on either side. They have neither systematically reviewed their investments, nor made the investments available for public scrutiny.
"None of our managers is invested in companies in Sudan, whether in our name or in a fund's name," Chief Investment Officer Kathryn Crecelius wrote in an e-mail.
According to Crecelius, the investment office essentially acts as "managers of managers." A large portion of the University's holdings are in collective investments, such as mutual funds. The nature of these investments makes it more complicated to trace exactly where the funds are going.
Crecelius said that the University hires outside managers who buy securities in either the name of the University of in the name of their fund. Since the managers do not find "sustainable businesses" in Sudan, they have no desire to directly invest in these businesses.
Senior Vice President for Finance and Administration James McGill said that he believes that the human rights issues in Sudan "will be dealt with most effectively via economic and diplomatic pressures instituted by our government and other governments."
The board of trustees, which makes the final decisions when it comes to University finances, refused to comment.
In the years since the genocide began, over 50 universities have divested, including some of the most prestigious in the country.
Harvard University previously held direct investments in PetroChina, a Chinese oil company under the China National Petroleum Corporation that was notorious for its human rights violations in the region, including direct contributions to military spending that funded the genocide. Students protested when they discovered the investment, which eventually led the University to total withdrawal from companies doing business in Sudan.
In an official statement by the Harvard Corporation Committee on Shareholder Responsibility, the university's Advisory Corporation Committee on Shareholder Responsibility said that Harvard, "as an academic rather than a political institution, must take great care to avoid leveraging its endowment or prestige in ways that could embroil the institution in political and social controversies not directly related to its academic pursuits, and thus compromise the core values and independence of the academic enterprise."
The SDTF maintains a list of companies that do business in Sudan, which it updates yearly. The companies listed vary in the degree of severity of their offenses - some are indirectly linked to atrocities and some, like PetroChina, are directly fueling the fighting.
"Control over Sudan's considerable oil reserves is a major issue and has been for a long time," history professor Sara Berry said.
Sudan has been embroiled in civil war since its independence from British and Egyptian power in 1956, and economic struggle has always been part of the conflict. The issue of oil control overshadowed the two separate civil wars that plagued Sudan after reserves were discovered in the 1970s.
Genocide in Darfur is rooted in conflict that began five years ago between rebel groups based in the region and the regime in Khartoum, Sudan's capital city. The ruling majority population is Arab-African, while the people in Darfur are not.
Government-sponsored militias called the Janjaweed have decimated entire villages of Darfuris, but have had virtually no impact on the rebel groups. Not even a 2005 peace agreement could bring a definitive end to the conflict.
Berry said that while the University would be making a significant symbolic gesture by divesting, the economic impact would be "insignificant," due to the enormity of Chinese contracts in the region.
Martel agreed that China's impact in the region is negative and highly imposing, because its policies are not human rights-friendly. China has been giving totalitarian regimes a "blank check," Martel said, in cooperating with their demands to make the most profit possible.
An economics professor, who preferred to be quoted anonymously, agreed that a single university divestment would not have much effect on the country economically because of China's presence in the region.
"The whole world would have to divest and refuse to buy. Otherwise it's just one little guy selling one little share," he said.
Furthermore, the professor said that in some cases a single organization divesting could have the adverse effect of helping the companies it wanted to hurt in the first place. These company owners could suddenly get shares back that were just sold without having to pay anything and then being able to reap all the profits.
"In that case, you're actually just doing them a favor," the professor said.
He argued that the biggest reason for divesting in the first place is politicizing the issue, not making an economic impact. He cited the student protests and rallies held by students during the 1980s to get Hopkins to divest from the then-apartheid regime in South Africa. Due to great student involvement, the University finally did divest.
According to the professor, however, even if much of the world divested of Sudan, Chinese money would keep the companies and the government there going.
"Inter-country competition gravely adds to the problem, especially since China is active in the region and no longer in Maoist isolation," he said.
The professor suggested that a more effective way of stopping a company from being involved in the region is to sue them for human rights-related issues, since court cases restrict companies from operating.
However, the professor said that there are still benefits to universities divesting. The gesture is symbolic and can help to change public opinion.
"If Hopkins divests, then people might panic about their shares and sell," he said. "Divestment is a good way to send a message and get the ball rolling."
Conflict in the region is further complicated by Sudan's enormous oil reserves. According to Martel, major oil companies that operate in Sudan have direct contracts with the Khartoum regime. Oil companies finance military spending in exchange for being able to drill for petroleum.
"Around the time that oil contracts are made, soldiers' salaries and military spending of any sort double," Martel said.
"Just as in other parts of Africa blood diamonds fund atrocities, blood oil funds the devastation in Darfur," Martel said.
Last night, JHU STAND hosted Darfur Fast to collect money that will be used to protect the region's civilians and to raise awareness of the current human rights atrocities being committed against them.
STAND has been organizing campus events in the past few years and has branched out to presenting genocide education in local Baltimore schools since the Darfur crisis began. STAND Events and Regional Conference Coordinator Adriane Alicea described the ultimate goal of the organization as one of "trying to stop genocide around the world."
