During the 1980s, a significant divestment campaign was established to end investments in South Africa, whose apartheid policies represented a human-rights nightmare. On college campuses, university trustees began to explicitly divest from South Africa, and along with other organizations, they helped impede the apartheid regime and eventually lead to its downfall. Divestiture did not repair apartheid on its own, but it certainly helped bring international attention to the problem.\nToday we see humanitarian crises worldwide, and regimes exist that we’d probably like to avoid involvement with. The Sudanese government’s encouragement of the genocide by paramilitary groups in Darfur, for instance, probably warrants some action other than finger-wagging. Nevertheless, IU continues to work with the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association, College Retirement Equities Fund, an organization that has refused to stop investing in companies with Sudanese interests, whose oil revenues largely prop up the Sudanese government. \nWe at the IDS Editorial Board realize that the strings of investments can be long and we cannot always be sure of total divestment. In fact, during the South Africa divestment campaign, many universities still indirectly invested in the regime. But this does not mean we should throw up our hands. Making a public statement by pressuring the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association, College Retirement Equities Fund and other funds can force companies to take their investments in terrible regimes seriously.\nWhy should IU take an action that might harm its investments? Consider that making a stand as an ethical university has returns greater than claiming moral high ground. For example, we harp on business ethics to our business students, yet what example would IU be showing if it avoided any discussion of divestment? Furthermore, a university that demonstrates ethical decision-making in its investments might garner a better public image, gaining greater respect from alumni and potential donors.\nStill, the basic point remains the same: Regardless of how effective the campaign inevitably is, or of any side benefits IU might gain from divesting, we must attempt to cut economic support for regimes such as the one in Sudan simply because it is the right thing to do.
DISSENT:\nIU’s decision to use its investment dollars as leverage for a morality sermon will only result in it hurting itself. The companies we have considered boycotting are too large for us to affect; even a collective boycott from the Big Ten would still result in no change. Every corporation seeks to maximize profit, and changing the entire method of operation to attract investment dollars from even major universities would surely be a net loss. \nThe only people who would be affected by this are those at IU, and for a university that sees fit to charge an already high tuition, sacrificing a higher return on investment because of some arbitrary view of what’s right and wrong seems like a poor ordering of priorities. Besides, a large university has better ways of communicating disapproval. We should choose one that doesn’t hurt us more than those we criticize.\n-Jacob Levin
