Two years ago, Harvard University became the first major university to announce a policy of selling off stocks in companies that operate in Sudan in ways that support the genocide taking place in Darfur. The announcement was huge for the nascent movement to push universities to take a stand on Darfur. No university has a larger endowment. And Harvard has a well known dislike for using its endowment for any political or social cause — so when it decided Darfur was important enough to make an exception, the divestment movement gained instant credibility.
Dozens of colleges followed Harvard’s lead — with many of them not just selling off a few companies’ stock, but setting general guidelines that would restrict holding stock in companies complicit in the genocide. Harvard was widely praised for being a leader.
But then things got complicated. ...In January, The Harvard Crimson reported that the university continued to hold stock in the companies from which it divested — stock worth more than that the university had sold — when the shares were part of a broad investment fund (like a mutual fund).
This provides a fairly detailed account of the challenges of incorporating divestment with complex investment strategies. Harvard doesn't want to go there; others have.
No comments:
Post a Comment