y Sunday, November 13th, word had leaked. The Trustees of Dartmouth College had concluded their meeting the previous day, and the final decision was made public. After months of student organizing, deliberations with the administration, and public debate, there is finally a conclusive answer: Dartmouth will not invest in companies directly complicit in the genocide in Darfur. This is an extremely significant statement, for both Dartmouth history and Darfur activists. While a large portion of the campus expressed support for divestment, the decision has had its critics and detractors, and of course, the genocide still carries on. This is the third time in the history of Dartmouth College that certain investments have been found morally and ethically untenable; in light of that, it is important to understand how divestment happened and what implications it does or does not have for the future.

Background

The Khartoum government controls a small portion of Sudan. Held afloat by oil profits, this totalitarian regime is still negotiating the peace terms of the genocidal civil war with the South while it continues to wreak havoc on the western region of Darfur. To date, 400,000 ethnically African Darfurians have died and over two million have been displaced at the hands of the Sudanese military and Arab proxy militias. While this has not been entirely ignored by the international community, there have been no effective attempts at intervention, and the violence continues unabated.

If the American government has not been quick to respond, some Americans have been. Coalitions of the political left and right, humanitarians, traditional NGOs, and the “Christian right” have all built a major movement to raise public awareness and advocate any kind of progress in Sudan. At Dartmouth, the Darfur Action Group (DAG) was founded last winter. The group held events to raise campus and community awareness of the crisis, raise funds for charities like the Genocide Intervention Fund and Doctors Without Borders, attended lobbying events, and after much deliberation, initiated a divestment campaign.

The rationale behind divestment concentrated largely on the idea of moral complicity. Reflecting language from a Trustee’s statement made during Dartmouth’s divestment from apartheid South Africa, the DAG declared that the college should not make investments contrary to the institution’s principles. In the case of Sudan, this meant the college should not invest in corporations who knowingly provide a genocidal regime with its main source of revenue. More simply put, they argued that Dartmouth should have clean hands. The DAG also advocated a more widespread movement. As other universities washed their hands of such unacceptable holdings, the associated dialogue and press coverage would raise public awareness of the genocide. This, coupled with state legislature divestment movements, would create political pressure to assist ongoing lobbying efforts for Washington to take action. Furthermore, the possible negative press and economic consequences of a nationwide movement could compel corporations to re-evaluate their own roles in this, either pulling out or halting operations in the region, thereby pressuring Khartoum.

The Darfur Action Group researched the issue, garnered widespread student support, and successfully advocated its case to the college’s Advisory Committee on Investor Responsibility (ACIR). On June 2nd, the ACIR passed a resolution recommending divestment from corporations directly complicit in the genocide. In August, a more in-depth report was published, detailing exactly which companies could fit that category.

The Trustees Decision

In the final moments before the decision, it seemed there would be no ruling. Following the ACIR’s June decision, the Trustees met twice. By this time, Harvard and Stanford had decided to partially divest from Sudanese oil companies. At the commencement meeting, the Trustees commended ACIR and DAG, but then referred the matter to their own Investment Committee, deferring a decision until this committee reported back. Following the September meeting, there was still no statement on the issue. The Darfur Action Group once again mobilized, collecting petition signatures from over 1200 students, and receiving endorsements from various student organizations, faculty members, and alumni. This was brought to the attention of Vice President for Finance & Administration Adam Keller, who acted quickly to ensure the Investment Committee managed to complete its deliberations in time for the November 11th-12th Trustees meeting. From reported conversations with the Trustees, it was this showing of broad-based support that vaulted the issue off the bottom of the Trustees’ agenda.

The official statements from Dartmouth College were vague and light on details, so it is important to clarify. The Trustees voted to comply with the ACIR’s recommendation that “Dartmouth neither acquire nor retain ownership in publicly traded companies that are directly complicit in the genocidal activities in Darfur or whose involvement in Sudan directly and substantially supports the ability to conduct those activities.” According to the ACIR’s research so far, six oil companies fit that description. Pending further research and information, this list is subject to grow or shrink. As of this weekend, Dartmouth did not own stock in any of these companies, so the current mandate is to screen against future acquisition in any form.

Is this Divestment?

It is understandable that those skeptical of divestment and activism in general would try to find fault in the Trustees decision. One point of contention is whether or not Dartmouth has actually divested from anything. As of yet the college has not, but that doesn’t mean that this was an empty and placatory gesture. In recent history, Dartmouth has been invested in at least one of these companies, and if a current holding is found to fit the criteria of “directly and substantially” complicit, the college will divest. Others have insisted that this restriction only applies to direct acquisition, and is therefore meaningless if stock is acquired through a mutual fund. Yet, the recent statements of President Wright, deliberations within the ACIR, and past precedent of Dartmouth’s South Africa policy and tobacco divestment at other institutions, suggest nothing of the kind. Acquisition, no matter through what route, is forbidden, even if this means forgoing entire mutual funds. It is these practices that have spurred the creation of socially-responsible (i.e. Tobacco-free) mutual funds. Professor Andrew Samwick, on his blog, expressed support for the moral complicity argument, but doubted any larger economic impact. The biggest question posed by supporters and cynics alike is, “What does this accomplish?”

What Does this Mean?

Dartmouth was not single-handedly bankrolling genocide, and our divestment has not made the violence stop. However, nobody ever claimed it would, and at the very least, Dartmouth has secured its moral integrity. There are larger implications, however. The ACIR, a relatively new addition to Dartmouth, has strengthened its own credibility and authority by advocating sound policy on a controversial issue. The research done by DAG and the significance derived from the prestige of Dartmouth has furthered divestment efforts throughout the country. New Jersey, Illinois, and Oregon passed legislation to divest their state pension funds, and efforts are pending in many other states, including Vermont and Massachusetts. Throughout the nation, state pension funds hold approximately $100 billion of investments in Sudan, and DAG directly assisted both New Jersey and Vermont’s efforts. On Monday, November 15th, the University of California System’s Committee on Investments, which controls a $6.5 billion endowment, agreed to prepare a divestment proposal to be voted on by the UC Regents in January. Ivy peers Brown and Columbia had meetings on divestment this past Tuesday, and Amherst is reportedly approaching a decision. While any economic consequence will be difficult to determine, this constitutes definite and notable progress. Legislative acts such as the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act are going through Congress, and there will soon be a renewed push for increased funding for the African Union.

Divestment is a last-ditch effort for a university to address conflicts with certain investments. With no acceptable recourse, Dartmouth made this decision for the third time in history. Efforts that once took years of advocacy and brought on harsh resistance by college administrations are now regarded as logical, reasonable, and financially sensible. The divestment movement targeted at South Africa has been credited as a significant factor in the fall of apartheid. Following Dartmouth’s divestment from Hydro-Quebec, the corporation abandoned its contentious dam project. Dartmouth’s divestment advances one line of assault in the multi-pronged strategy to take action on Darfur. Divestment isn’t everything, but its part of something that will prevent the world from idly standing by while genocide continues on.

Editors Note: Niral Shah is the Co-Chair of the Darfur Action Group and lobbied strongly for divestment.