Amherst decides not to divest from Israel, but its policy still violates institutional neutrality

Amherst College’s Board of Trustees has issued a rather confused statement responding to the call of many Amherst pro-Palestinians to divest from companies supplying military equipment to Israel.  The Board decided not to divest, but seems to reserve the right to do so if there is a lot of agreement in the college community on political or ideological issues.

Moreover, the Board emphasizes that it has in the past taken sides and issued statements on such issues, including “apartheid in South Africa and genocide in Sudan.” The bizarre aspect of their statement—and one that nullifies any pretense of institutional neutrality—is that it appears to condition official statements by the Board on whether or not there is “broad and deep agreement” in the Amherst community.  That, of course, raises the question of how broad and deep the agreement must be before the board decides to take sides.

Clearly, Amherst doesn’t fully embrace the Kalven Principles held by the University of Chicago, in which investments occur absolutely independently of outside pressure from and of the extent of agreement in the University community. Chicago has never responded to pressure of this sort.

You can read the Amherst Board’s response by clicking on the link below:

Early in the report, the Board says that their actions are governed by both the economic welfare of Amherst (which investments are supposed to uphold) and the degree of agreement of the community on a political, moral, or ideological issue.  The latter, of course, violates institutional neutrality (bolding is mine):

In our discussions, two principles have guided the trustees: first, as a fiduciary, the Board has a legal responsibility to act in the best interests of the College for both the short and long term; and second, as an agent of an institution comprised of many individuals with a wide range of backgrounds and opinions, it must consider and respect the perspectives of all members of our community. Accordingly, actions taken by the Board should either directly relate to the preservation and advancement of the College’s educational mission or, in rare cases lacking that connection to our purpose, should reflect a broad and deep agreement among Amherst’s students, faculty, staff, and alumni, and should not otherwise harm the College’s interests.

The Board has taken action on issues where disagreement exists—including, in recent years, legacy admissions, support for undocumented students, and advocacy for increased federal and state financial aid—on questions directly related to the fulfillment of our mission as an educational institution. Very rarely, the Board has also taken action responding to global events unrelated to the College’s day-to-day operation—apartheid in South Africa and genocide in Sudan—but only when there was clear agreement in our community, supported by a consensus of the federal government and international organizations.

I’m sure I’d agree with the Board’s stand on South Africa and Sudan (I was arrested for protesting apartheid), but that’s not the point. The Board should not be taking such stands, for they chill the expression of those who may dissent, stifling the lifeblood of a college: free discussion, untrammeled by fear of offending the higher-ups.

At Chicago, official statements can be made and actions taken,on issues that directly affect the working and mission of the University, including the DACA program supporting undocumented students. It’s the part above in bold that is problematic, allowing the Trustees to take stands on issues with no direct bearing on the College’s mission. And on those issues, including South Africa and Sudan, that the Amherst Board of Trustees did indeed take action. It’s not clear from the document whether that action involved divestment or making official statements supporting one side, but either action violates institutional neutrality.

Apparently, the degree of disagreement about the war in Gaza hasn’t risen to Amherst’s level of agreement (bolding is again mine):

With regard to divestment related to Israel’s campaign in Gaza, perspectives in the Amherst community are both deeply held and extremely polarized, as was demonstrated by opinions shared in the faculty meeting on divestment; in meetings held this spring by the administration and trustees with students, faculty, and alumni; during and after the protest at Reunion; in countless formal and informal discussions and venues throughout the year; in the Amherst Student; and in petitions, open letters, and emails to the Board and the administration.

. . . The Board believes that this state of profound disagreement, both as to the action to be taken and its propriety, is very different from the two previous instances when the College took endowment action reflecting broad and deep agreement both on and beyond our campus in response to events in South Africa and Sudan. While the recent resolutions approved by the AAS Senate and the faculty received majority votes of those present, a substantial minority exists among students and faculty that opposes these resolutions—and many alumni have expressed opposing positions, as well. The Board respects that these resolutions were approved through deliberative processes that resulted in the approval of the majority. It also feels an obligation to listen carefully to and consider the significant minority that opposed them.

This leads one to ask this: “If condemnation of Israel were nearly universal at Amherst, would the board then be justified in disinvesting, or taking other actions?”  They imply “yes,” but, to add to the confusion, later on they emphasize that even unanimity of opinion would be problematic for disinvesting (bolding is mine).

Even if there were universal consensus in support of divestment and shared agreement about which companies “supply military equipment used in the present campaign in Gaza”—as the faculty resolution frames it—it would be unrealistic for us to seek to compel our current outside investment managers to remove these companies from their funds. We would, therefore, need to liquidate holdings at potentially poor valuations and either move our endowment capital to other managers whose current investments do not include these companies or directly manage the capital, which would not align with responsible practices for institutional investment. These actions could have significant immediate and long-term negative impacts on returns and—because the endowment directly supports 56% of the College’s annual operating budget—on financial aid, faculty and staff salaries and benefits, and operations.

This is puzzling. I’m not sure whether the actions taken by Amherst’s Trustees with respect to South Africa and Sudan involved disinvesting, but if it did, then clearly there is no complete bar to doing so.

Which is it, Amherst?  Perhaps, though, the Trustees didn’t disinvest in those cases, but merely issued statements. But as I said, even statements violate institutional neutrality. Who would be the judge of whether agreement on an issue is sufficiently widespread that action could be taken? If one student or professor dissents from an action (and surely there was not 100% agreement on South Africa and Sudan), does that still warrant taking sides?

Clearly not, because taking sides, either through issuing statements or disinvesting, will chill the speech of actual or potential dissenters. This is why institutional neutrality should be near absolute, breached only when an issue affects the working and mission of a college.

So would Amherst disinvest again  on a political issue like Gaza if demands to do so come from the college and nearly everybody agrees? They don’t say, but leave the question unanswered. In other words, they punt (bolding is mine):

Students, faculty, and alumni have also raised important questions about the standards by which the Board makes decisions about the endowment and possible actions related to divestment, the channels through which such actions should be proposed and how they should be evaluated, and the transparency of such decisions. Concurrently, some trustees have raised the question of whether the endowment is ever the correct vehicle for the College to express a position on a matter of morality or politics.

The Board realizes that it must address these important issues and continues to discuss the student-drafted proposal to create a campus committee that would make recommendations on such actions in the future. It has become apparent that members of the Amherst community interpret the role of the endowment in very different ways.

This is kicking the Kalven can down the road.

So no, Amherst has not adopted a policy of institutional neutrality, but simply made any official statements and actions contingent on how much dissent there is in the college community. That’s not a great way to foster free expression.