Misguided idealism of Georgetown, Divest!

[oberliner]

While many of the concerns and grievances articulated by the new campus group Georgetown, Divest! are valid, its demand that the University divest its money from companies profiting from human rights violations in Israel is logistically impractical and ultimately unreasonable.

The string of reports coming from the Middle East appear to confirm the assertions aired by the newly formed coalition Georgetown, Divest! that the human rights situation in Gaza and the West Bank is deplorable and the University is obliged to take action. This past Sunday, the Israeli military issued an order that would force thousands of Palestinian West Bank residents from their homes, and a Human Rights Watch report recently concluded that Israel has done little to investigate potential war crimes perpetrated during last year’s Gaza War.

Yet as dire as the situation in Israel may be, Georgetown, Divest!’s argument that the University has an obligation to pull its investments in companies that profit from Israel’s poor policies is impractical. Georgetown’s seven-member investment team does not directly choose which companies to invest Georgetown’s endowment money in. Rather, they select a number of investment managers who independently invest Georgetown’s endowment, often putting money into complex funds and financial instruments. As a result, it is very difficult to draw up a list of the companies Georgetown has money invested in, and it would be exceedingly difficult for Georgetown to divest from a select list of specific companies. Complying with Georgetown, Divest!’s demands would potentially require a transformation of its investment process and the possible resumption of direct investment by the Investment Office, weakening Georgetown’s endowment.

http://georgetownvoice.com/2010/04/14/misguided-idealism-of-georgetown-divest/

[Recursion]

1. Yeah, the same argument worked for South Africa for about 3 or 4 years

And it will probably work for Israel for about as long.

[rpannier]

2. their editorial is not finding much sympathy among the commentors

[oberliner]

3. There are only 3 of them

Here are a bunch more opinions on the subject:

http://blog.georgetownvoice.com/2010/04/17/comments-of-the-week-to-divest-or-not-to-divest/

[rpannier]

4. When I read it there were 5

It's not a lot I'll grant you
But, there's usually a few people who get in quick on these ops and support em

[oberliner]

6. There were three that were actually responsive to the article

Perhaps more have since been added.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

5. The BDS train gains speed and momentum. Justice cannot be denied forever!!

These students will force us all to declare whether we support never-ending apartheid, or we support justice.

What side are YOU on?

[oberliner]

7. What makes you think it is gaining speed and momentum?

The evidence seems to suggest that particular approach is not being embraced.

Perhaps justice can be sought by other means? What about a movement to promote the Geneva Initiative? Or something like what the One Voice folks tried to accomplish?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

8. LOL! De Nile is a river in Egypt. It's not to late to embrace justice and see these changes

for the positive steps they are!

[oberliner]

9. What changes and positive steps have there been that are related to "BDS" ?

I just don't see that this movement is having any more of a positive impact than, say, One Voice has had.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. You're talking about ends, not means.

By what means are you proposing promoting the Geneva Initiative?

Personally, I think that divestment and boycotts are unlikely to achieve much but certainly won't do any harm, and that the only thing that would have much chance of success are sanctions or a credible threat thereof, and I think they're very unlikely to happen, sadly.