Statement on Sudan Divestment Decision
Presented by Julie Peterson, Vice President for University Communications, to the Chicago City Council Committee on Human Relations on March 20, 2008
I would like to offer some perspective on the University’s very careful consideration of divestment from Sudan, as you in turn consider this resolution regarding our investment policies.
The conflict in Sudan’s Darfur region has been discussed extensively over the past three years on our own campus and many others across the country, as well as in public bodies such as this one.
The atrocities being committed in Darfur are truly horrifying. We understand and support your desire to find some way to contribute to a solution.
In 2006 and 2007, the question of whether the University of Chicago should divest from companies that do business with the government of Sudan became the subject of intense and ongoing discussion among our students, faculty, administration and trustees as well as with community leaders. The outcome of these active deliberations reflected both a lack of consensus on the effectiveness of divestment or other economic boycotts, and a belief that the University must reaffirm its most deeply held core values in determining how best to have a positive impact on the circumstances in Darfur.
Some universities have indeed chosen to address the Sudan situation through divestment. Each of those institutions had to consider its own history, mission and values in arriving at that decision. The University of Chicago’s decision not to divest is founded in our longstanding belief, as articulated by our faculty in the Kalven Report of 1967, that we have a powerful and lasting impact on society through the unrelenting freedom of inquiry that allows our faculty and students to challenge social institutions and beliefs.
“To perform its mission in society,” the committee wrote, “a university must sustain an extraordinary environment of freedom of inquiry and maintain an independence from political … pressures.” A university “is a community which cannot take collective action on the issues of the day without endangering the conditions for its existence and effectiveness. There is no mechanism by which it can reach a collective position without inhibiting that full freedom of dissent on which it thrives.”
The Kalven Report does not reflect merely the opinions of a handful of faculty members at a specific point many years ago in the University of Chicago’s history. Rather, it is the articulation of an enduring set of principles, present since the University’s founding, that go directly to the heart of our most deeply cherished values.
Geoffrey Stone, a distinguished faculty member in the Law School and former provost, wrote about these enduring values in his blog about the difficult issue of divestment from Darfur. He noted that, “Universities – most especially this university – exist for a very special reason. They exist to create a forum in which students, professors, and researchers may explore every issue from every side without fear of official condemnation or judgment. They exist to enable talented and committed individuals to seek the truth. They exist to serve as a safe haven in which even the most controversial and despised views may be aired, confronted, and considered. … For a university, it takes much more courage to stand silent, than to yield to the pressure and temptation to take sides. But once a university takes sides, it is no longer a university.”
During the University’s intense and lengthy discussions about the atrocities in Darfur, reasonable questions arose as to whether the case was so exceptional that the University should act to divest despite its long-held adherence to the principles outlined in the Kalven Report. The Kalven Committee acknowledged that, “In the exceptional instance…the corporate activities of the university may appear so incompatible with paramount social values as to require careful assessment of the consequences.”
To fully understand the views throughout campus, University of Chicago President Robert Zimmer led a number of conversations with faculty, students, administrative leaders, and trustees. These discussions took place with students leading the divestment campaign and included a face-to-face meeting with those students and the Chair of the Board of Trustees. They took place during regular sessions of elected faculty representatives through the Committee of the Council, in meetings of school and divisional deans, and in many one-on-one meetings. President Zimmer also had the opportunity to hear from students and alumni on this topic as part of a broader set of discussions about the future of the University. The Board of Trustees, which has responsibility for the University’s investment policy, considered the issue at four separate meetings, three at the Executive Committee and one involving the full Board.
These deliberations revealed a diversity of opinion—from those who believed divestment was an important moral and symbolic stance, to those who questioned the effectiveness of divestment efforts. There was a strong argument made that divestment would have no meaningful impact on the human suffering taking place in Darfur, but would rather be a largely symbolic gesture. One might ask why the University does not take this symbolic action since our actual investments in companies doing business in Sudan are so small as to be negligible. Yet such an action comes at a great potential cost to the core mission and values of the University. It is precisely for this reason that the Kalven committee asserted that the University “should not… permit itself to be diverted from its mission into playing the role of a second-rate political force or influence.”
On balance, the preponderant view among the groups and individuals engaged in this discussion was that the University should identify ways to contribute to this important issue only through means that comport with the mission of the University—open and free inquiry in the creation and dissemination of knowledge—which have been and will be the basis for the University’s most important contributions to addressing political and social issues. After significant discussion on this topic, the Board of Trustees in February 2007 determined that it would not change its investment policy or its longstanding practice of not taking explicit positions on social and political issues that do not have a direct bearing on the University.
At the same time, a $200,000 fund was created to underscore the seriousness with which the University takes the situation in Darfur. This fund has been used to underwrite faculty and student work that “broadens knowledge and helps prepare our students—through real world experiences and scholarly work—to advance human rights and the well-being of people around the world.” Examples of programs funded include an international conference on genocide to be held on our campus; funding for students to engage in community development projects in Sudan; and support that will bring a number of Sudanese academics and artists to Chicago to better understand how we can promote education under the most extreme circumstances.
I want to close with a few words more generally on human rights issues, a topic that goes directly to the charge of this committee.
We greatly respect and laud our students, as well as those of you, who are motivated to intercede in the terrible events in Darfur. We have numerous academic programs that immerse students in questions of human rights across the globe, including the University’s Human Rights Program which will celebrate its 10th anniversary in June. This program annually supports 30 students in conducting projects related to human rights in diverse locations across the globe. The Darfur fund I described earlier is supporting four additional internships for students who are working on issues related to the conflict in Sudan.
The University’s concern for human rights issues extends to the rights of those who live in our neighboring communities on the City’s South Side. We are concerned about the rights of citizens of Chicago to have access to high-quality education and health care, well-paying jobs, and safe and thriving neighborhoods. The University has undertaken a number of specific initiatives, in partnership with government and community organizations, to improve the quality of life in our surrounding communities. These efforts include charter schools and school partnerships to improve the public education system; provision of medical care to many members of our community; programs to enhance the availability of jobs for residents of the mid-South Side; and investments in housing, retail, and public amenities. Over the past five years, the University has invested more than $70 million in these and other community engagement initiatives.
We believe we contribute most to the city and to the world through these and other programs which are consistent with and supportive of our academic mission. The University of Chicago’s special role throughout history has been in creating an environment of open inquiry, in which the broadest possible array of ideas can be proposed and tested—this has been the source of our lasting and powerful impact on the world.
Thank you for this opportunity to share our views.
Respectfully submitted,
Julie A. Peterson
Vice President for Communications
The University of Chicago