More Divestment Info

We got this email from Emily Caffery, Lucas Guilkey, Jennifer Michtavy, Adam Jacobs, Ashley Casale, and Kathy Stavis: 

“We are as much in the dark as most of campus about divestment. We know that the trustees rejected SEWI’s proposal to divest from Raytheon and General Dynamics. The draft they rejected can be found here. 

We know that they voted for the creation of the Committee for Investor Responsibility. We don’t know if the trustees accepted the proposal in full, but the complete WSA drafted proposal can be found here. 

As far as we understand, these were two separate solutions and both votes were unanimous, which apparently is normal. A word of warning is that our sources are anecdotal and not official. 

We have emailed the trustee working group members, who are Michael Klingher, Karen Freedman, Karl Furstenberg, along with chairperson Jim Dresser, President Roth, and the WSA representatives who have sat in on the board meetings. 

We have requested that the trustees provide public explanation for their decision. So far the trustees have not provided nor responded to this request for an explanation. 

We encourage people to contact our president, trustees, and student body representatives and urge them to promptly release a public statement concerning this decision.” 

10 thoughts on “More Divestment Info

  1. Anonymous

    hey wesleying … thanks for posting these updates! i had been wondering about this issue.

  2. Anonymous

    hey wesleying … thanks for posting these updates! i had been wondering about this issue.

  3. Anonymous

    yeah, seriously, stop keeping us informed about what’s going on.fuck you, 10:04

  4. Izaak

    As a student representative to the Board, I definitely understand the frustration felt by students wanting an explanation for the decision. It is up to the Board to communicate the decision to the Wesleyan community, and I believe they will do so soon. We also have to understand that it is Commencement weekend, and so it might take a little while for a formal response…and that makes sense.As for the meeting, all I can say is that the divestment issue and the committee for socially responsible investing were both taken very seriously by the Board. Both sides were presented in what I thought was a fair and accurate way, and the Board did not take the proposal to divest lightly or without careful consideration. There was a significant amount of discussion and it involved multiple viewpoints. That’s really all I can say because the meetings are technically confidential. Personally, I spoke about the positions of those in support of divestment and thanked the Board for the seriousness with which they considered the matter.Look, I know the ultimate decision to not divest is frustrating for those students who have worked passionately to change our investment policies. As a WSA rep (whose Assembly voted last year for divestment), I too am frustrated. But I also know that this issue has forced the Board and the University to examine how we invest and what it means to be a ‘socially responsible’ institution in word AND deed. And while it won’t be much of a consolation, many Trustees would tell you that while the divestment issue may not have won, the Committee for Investor Responsibility would never have happened if not for students who made this an issue. That’s all I got for now. I hope this helps out those who were being left out in the dark.-Izaak Orlansky ’08, (former) WSA Coordinator

  5. Izaak

    As a student representative to the Board, I definitely understand the frustration felt by students wanting an explanation for the decision. It is up to the Board to communicate the decision to the Wesleyan community, and I believe they will do so soon. We also have to understand that it is Commencement weekend, and so it might take a little while for a formal response…and that makes sense.

    As for the meeting, all I can say is that the divestment issue and the committee for socially responsible investing were both taken very seriously by the Board. Both sides were presented in what I thought was a fair and accurate way, and the Board did not take the proposal to divest lightly or without careful consideration. There was a significant amount of discussion and it involved multiple viewpoints. That’s really all I can say because the meetings are technically confidential. Personally, I spoke about the positions of those in support of divestment and thanked the Board for the seriousness with which they considered the matter.

    Look, I know the ultimate decision to not divest is frustrating for those students who have worked passionately to change our investment policies. As a WSA rep (whose Assembly voted last year for divestment), I too am frustrated. But I also know that this issue has forced the Board and the University to examine how we invest and what it means to be a ‘socially responsible’ institution in word AND deed. And while it won’t be much of a consolation, many Trustees would tell you that while the divestment issue may not have won, the Committee for Investor Responsibility would never have happened if not for students who made this an issue.

    That’s all I got for now. I hope this helps out those who were being left out in the dark.

    -Izaak Orlansky ’08, (former) WSA Coordinator

Comments are closed.