On Jan. 16, the Hopkins Public Interest Investment Advisory Committee (PIIAC) rejected a proposal from the Hopkins Justice Collective (HJC) to divest from weapons and surveillance companies implicated in atrocities in Gaza. The decision came during one of the worst humanitarian crises in recent history, as over 90% of over 2 million Palestinians faced bombardment, starvation and displacement, with man-made famine confirmed in Gaza. Some critics argue that the PIIAC’s report was methodologically weak, morally evasive and damaging to the credibility of the University.
Misuse of antisemitism allegations
The PIIAC implied that the HJC proposal was antisemitic because it referred to Israel as an apartheid state. No evidence was provided for this claim except that it was “shared by some members of the committee.” This framing disregarded the international consensus: the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and even Israel’s own human rights organization, B’Tselem, all confirm that Israeli policies amount to apartheid. Conflating criticism of apartheid with antisemitism ignores the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition, which explicitly allows factually based criticism of Israel, and the Anti-Defamation League’s own clarification that such criticism is not antisemitic. This mischaracterization enabled the PIIAC to sidestep substantive engagement with the evidence, particularly the allegations of genocide in Gaza that were central to the petitioners’ case.
The committee asserted that “to ensure a neutral and dispassionate review process,” it “explicitly did not adjudicate the validity of these assertions and is neither expressing an opinion nor endorsing a perspective regarding the conflict in Gaza and the Middle East.” However the committee made multiple assertions endorsing a pro-Israel perspective, contradicting its own process, such as the statement that divestment would “single out Israel,” even though it notes that the methodology to identify companies for divestment included “measures unrelated to the Israel–Palestine conflict.” The committee also invoked hypothetical political comparisons with China and Saudi Arabia to argue against divestment, notwithstanding that both these states have been under U.S. sanctions for human rights violations.
Free speech is not antisemitism
Conflating antisemitism with criticism of Israel has a chilling effect on free speech and academic freedom. Apart from delegitimizing the Palestinian struggle for human rights and fueling Islamophobia, it also stereotypes Jews, silences Jewish dissent, politicizes and dilutes the meaning of antisemitism, and ultimately creates a backlash against Jews. Kenneth Stern, the lead drafter of the IHRA definition of antisemitism concluded that weaponization of antisemitism on college campuses makes Jewish students feel “less safe.” Many in the Hopkins community understand these risks and reject this false equivalence. On Aug. 22 more than 100 Jewish faculty and staff released a statement “Not in Our Name,” affirming that accusations of antisemitism are too often misused to silence debate, criminalize advocacy for Palestine and erode the space for critical inquiry. The call reflects a growing national movement in which Jewish scholars, alongside diverse allies, reject conflations of political critique with bigotry, insisting instead on intellectual honesty and academic freedom.
Arms industry and the genocide in Gaza
The HJC petition highlighted the nature of Israel’s defense sector, which tests weapons on Palestinians under occupation before marketing them abroad as “battle tested.” Companies such as Elbit Systems profit by showcasing footage of destruction, sometimes involving children, to attract customers. In addition to the evidence in the proposal, the UN Special Rapporteur published a detailed report titled “From economy of occupation to economy of genocide” documenting direct involvement with genocide and war crimes by defense-contracting companies Hopkins has invested in, such as Lockheed Martin, Caterpillar and Northrop Grumman.
Double standards in decision-making
In 2017, the PIIAC recommended divestment from fossil fuels on the grounds of moral leadership, social impact and alignment with the University’s values. Those same principles were conspicuously absent in 2025. Instead, the PIIAC cited “lack of consensus” on campus and the supposed futility of divestment. Yet the committee admitted to receiving 45 supportive emails and only “several” opposed. The PIIAC admits that its “governing documents do not state the level of consensus required” but arbitrarily decided that the proposal “did not meet the high threshold.” As evidence of this claim, the PIIAC quoted a total of four emails almost verbatim from the pro-Israel groups — one of these emails described students as “trespassers and agitators.” Supportive voices (including open letters signed by more than 600 Hopkins faculty and graduate students) were dismissed as “using the same language,” while opposition was inflated and highlighted in detail. Unlike in 2017, no surveys or forums were held to foster discussion, reflecting institutional avoidance and apathy.
Flawed financial arguments
The PIIAC claimed that the University’s indirect holdings amounted to only 0.0012% of the companies’ value and that divestment would not alter their practices. This argument ignores how reputational pressure changes corporate behavior. When Facebook revealed Israeli Pegasus spyware abuses in 2024, its parent company NSO Group swiftly restricted its use. Divestment is about signaling moral legitimacy, not overwhelming financial weight.
The committee also dismissed Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) funds as impractical, despite clear evidence they often outperform traditional investments. BlackRock and Vanguard, which manage the University’s assets, both offer ESG portfolios with stronger returns than the University’s current holdings; for example, 8.22% (iShares MSCI ACWI, the University’s existing investment) versus 10.92% (iShares MSCI USA ESG), for a 10-year return.
At the same time, investing in Israeli companies carries rising risks: Moody’s downgraded Israel’s credit rating to just above junk status, while sanctions by the U.K., EU, and Canada increase instability. Brazil and other countries have postponed major arms contracts with Elbit, and the sector has already lost more than 35% of its contracts in the Global South. Most recently, Turkey has implemented a complete embargo on trade with Israel over the Gaza genocide.
Reputational and moral costs
Beyond finances, the moral stakes are immense. International Association of Genocide Scholars recently issued a resolution determining that the conduct on war in Gaza meets the legal definition of genocide. A legal analysis by the UN Human Rights Council concluded that “Israeli security forces have committed and are continuing to commit” four out of five acts of genocide as defined in the UN 1948 Genocide Convention. It also concluded that “Israeli President Isaac Herzog, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, have incited the commission of genocide.”
Israeli leaders have openly called for mass starvation, ethnic cleansing, killing of children, “punishment more painful than death” and even wiping out Gaza. Such extremely dehumanizing rhetoric underscores genocidal intent. Prominent Israelis, including opposition leader Yair Golan, warned that Israel is “ killing children as a hobby” and that it is fast becoming a global pariah. U.S. lawmakers, including Maryland senators Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks, have charged Israel with ethnic cleansing and war crimes and voted for an arms embargo, along with 22 other senators. Major Western countries like Spain and Germany have completely or partially blocked armed sales to Israel because of its genocidal acts.
For Hopkins, complicity risks reputational collapse. Amnesty International has already issued critical reports on U.S. universities’ investment practices. Other institutions, including King’s College at Cambridge University and Norway’s Sovereign Wealth Fund, have divested from Israeli companies. Public opinion is shifting. A Gallup poll in July 2025 found that almost 60% of Americans oppose the genocide in Gaza. The University’s refusal to act places it out of step with the global momentum toward accountability.
Conclusion: toward moral leadership
The PIIAC report represents a failure of ethical responsibility and academic integrity. This decision must also be read alongside broader attempts to silence dissent in higher education and universities’ attempt to be complicit with the demands of the Trump administration. A federal judge recently ruled these actions unconstitutional, affirming that they violated the First Amendment and the Civil Rights Act.
The University’s prior divestments from South Africa in the 1980s, tobacco in the 1990s and thermal coal in the 2010s were not driven by financial incentives nor grounded in overwhelming community consensus, but instead reflected moral, ethical and reputational imperatives. In the South African case, apartheid was denounced as a “social evil” violating human decency; with tobacco, financial ties to companies causing preventable deaths were seen as “undermining [the University’s] status as a leader in medicine and public health”; and with coal, the decision emphasized sustainability and institutional responsibility.
Universities are not neutral actors. Their endowments, partnerships and policies embed them within global systems of power, including arms production, surveillance and war. To invest in companies that profit from occupation and genocide is to become complicit in structural violence. Suppressing speech under the guise of avoiding controversy is to erode the very mission of higher education. Hopkins must divest from arms companies to avoid complicity in genocide and to reclaim its credibility as an institution of conscience. Remaining silent and invested in violence is not neutrality, it is complicity.
Mansoor Malik, M.D. is a professor of psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and a passionate human rights advocate. His areas of research include burnout, wellbeing and intersection of Antisemitism, Islamophobia and other forms of hate ideologies.
