Brown University Votes Down BDS Proposal

An investment network, JLens, published a study that found that adopting divestment — a core tenet of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement — may compromise Brown’s financial health.

By Dion J. Pierre, The Algemeiner

The Brown University Corporation has voted down a proposal — muscled onto the agenda of its annual meeting by an anti-Zionist group which held the university hostage with threats of illegal demonstrations and other misconduct — to divest from ten companies linked to Israel, according to an announcement from the University.

According to the university, the Corporation heeded the counsel of the Advisory Committee on University Resources Management (ACURM), which witnessed earlier this semester a presentation — delivered by the pro-Hamas group Brown Divest Coalition (BDC) — in support of divestment and recommended that it be turned down.

Brown University president Christina Paxson concealed ACURM’s opinion from the public, ostensibly to shield it from political pressure, but the decision had the effect of fueling speculation that the body, which once recommended divestment several years ago, had done so again.

“The Corporation also discussed the broader issue of whether taking a stance on a geopolitical issue through divestment is consistent with Brown’s mission of education and scholarship. The Corporation reaffirmed that Brown’s mission is to discover, communicate, and preserve knowledge. It is not to adjudicate or resolve global conflicts,” president Paxson and Brown Corporation chancellor Brian T. Moynihan said on Wednesday in a letter commenting on the vote.

They continued, “The manner in which our community now reflects on this decision creates an opportunity. Throughout our history, Brown as a community has been guided, even when we disagree with each other, by a deeply held campus culture characterized by mutual respect, support for each other, empathy, understanding of differences and, importantly, a willingness to engage in constructive dialogue regarding these differences. Whether you support, oppose or have no opinion on the decision of the Corporation, we hope you will do so with a commitment to sustaining, nurturing, and strengthening the principles that have long been at the core of our teaching and learning community.”

Brooke Verschleiser, a third-year Brown University student and biochemistry major who helped lead the effort of Jewish students to oppose divestment, told The Algemeiner on Wednesday that she commends the Corporation’s prudence.

“We are pleased that ACURM followed its charge and that the Corporation made its decision based on the facts and appropriate guidelines,” Verschleiser said. ” We echo President Paxson’s hope that the community will uphold its culture of ‘mutual respect, support for each other, empathy, understanding of differences, and, importantly, a willingness to engage in constructive dialogue.”

The Brown Corporation’s mere consideration of the divestment proposal, which many argued would descend the university into the paranoia and hatred of antisemitic conspiracy, set off waves of opposition over the past several weeks.

Last month, Joseph Edelman, a trustee of the Corporation has resigned from his position, condemning the vote as a betrayal of the Jewish community.

“I disagree with the upcoming divestment vote on Israel,” Edelman, a hedge fund manager, wrote in an op-ed explaining his decision. “I am concerned about what Brown’s willingness to hold such a vote suggests about the university’s attitude toward rising antisemitism on campus and a growing political movement that seeks the destruction of the state of Israel.”

Others, including 24 attorneys general, warned that conceding to the demands of a group which endorses mass casualty events inspired by Islamist extremism would have “immediate and profound legal consequences” — potentially divestment from Brown mandated by “laws in nearly three-fourths of states prohibiting states and their instrumentalities from contracting with, investing in, or otherwise doing business with entities that discriminate against Israel, Israelis, or those who do business with either.”

Meanwhile, an investment network, JLens, published a study which found that adopting divestment — a core tenet of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement — may compromise Brown’s financial health.

According to the study which measured the havoc BDS would wreak on university investment portfolios, divestment from Israel would incinerate over $300 million in returns for the Brown’s endowment in the just the next decade.

News of Corporation’s decision was greeted with invective and abusive language, as the pro-Hamas group which proposed divestment took to social media to lodge expletives and other offensive insults at Christina Paxson, who withstood sharp criticism for agreeing to negotiate with its members.

“F— you CPax. F—You Brown Corp,” the Brown Divest Coalition said in a statement on Wednesday. “Free Palestine.”

American universities are largely rejecting demands to divest from Israel and entities linked to the Jewish state, delivering further blows to the pro-Hamas protest movement, which students and faculty pushed with dozens of illegal demonstrations to coerce officials into enacting the policy.

In August, Oberlin College’s Board of Trustees voted against BDS after reviewing a proposal submitted by “Students for a Free Palestine,” a spin-off of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), which has been linked to Islamist terrorist organizations.

The following month, University of Minnesota and Chapman University also rejected BDS, citing similar reasons, including “fiduciary duty” and the importance of insulating investment decisions from the caprices of political opinion.

Oberlin explained that divestment would undermine its mission to create a space in which students “express contested views,” adding that adopting the divestment proposal “would be taking a clear institutional stand on one side of a fraught and contested issue that divides the Oberlin community.”

It continued, “The board believes that doing so could constrain critical thinking, discourse, and debate on the subject, which would jeopardize the college’s mission.”

Christina Paxson and Brian Moynihan expressed similar views in Wednesday’s statement.

“Brown’s Public Statements Policy is already clear that the university does not make institutional statements on social, political, or policy matters unrelated to the university’s operations in advancing education, scholarship and discovery,” they said.

“Brown’s standards for divestment should be reviewed to ensure that they are aligned with this policy…for now, it is clear that the endowment should not and will not be used to take a stance on the contested geopolitical issues in the Middle East.”