I would like to thank the IDS for covering the issue of divestment and respond to the Foundation’s allegation in the article that divestment’s logic is flawed and that it is a “feel-good measure.” Divestment is designed to exert economic pressure on the Sudanese government where diplomatic pressure has been slow or ineffective. Nine companies have already ceased their operations in Sudan as a result of the divestment movement, and the Sudanese government has been visibly distressed by this. Divestment is a strategy designed to apply international pressure where it will be most effective, and I therefore fail to see the flaw in its logic. There is another kind of logic at work here, however – that which maintains that a university’s sole role is to dispense education, and our sole role as students is to receive it. I would not contest that the Foundation’s primary responsibility is to maximize the financial resources available to IU, nor that it has done an outstanding job in providing scholarships to students. I would contend, however, that the logic of the IU community cannot be reduced solely to resource maximization and passive education. Rather, I see a university as a dynamic institution in which we as students have a role as actors. Moreover, the University has a public face and a place in the global system of relations, and to preclude any serious discussion of the ethical implications of our investments in companies operating in Sudan is to deny these considerations. If the administration and the Foundation were arguing that divestment from Sudan would hurt IU financially and affect either the quality or the cost of our education, this would be a stronger case against it. The argument being advanced so far, however, is that faculty and students should confine themselves solely to the roles of the educator and the educated – that both their voices and their ethical concerns, no matter
