Dear Members of the Brown Community,

The question of divestment from companies that conduct business in Israel has been raised through activism and various protest movements both at Brown and at other universities across the country over the past several years. This fall, the Corporation of Brown University will consider this question, which has brought to the forefront deeply-held and contrasting views among many members of our community.

As the University’s highest governing body, the Corporation will review a formal recommendation on divestment and subject it to a vote at its regular meeting in October. The Corporation is committed to conducting a fair, balanced and well-informed review, in keeping with Brown’s long-standing process for considering requests for divestment that come from our community.

Given the substantial interest in this matter among members of our community, I am writing to share a summary of the process to-date, as well as the guidance that I recently provided to the committee of faculty, students, staff and alumni that will consider the matter and make the recommendation that will go to the Corporation.

Overview of the Process

Across generations at Brown, the first step for consideration of any divestment action is for a University community member to submit a proposal to a committee composed of faculty, students, staff and alumni that considers the matter and makes a recommendation to the President. The President then decides whether to move the recommendation forward to the Brown University Corporation.

The committee, currently named the Advisory Committee on University Resource Management (ACURM), received a proposal in early July from the Brown Divest Coalition titled “A Critical Edition of: ‘To Recommend Divestment from Companies that Facilitate the Israeli Occupation of Palestinian Territory.” As part of the agreement the University reached with students to peacefully end the unauthorized encampment on the College Green in April, the students agreed to pursue this established process for consideration of any divestment proposal at Brown. This is the course I had urged for students during protest actions related to divestment in both December and February.

To bring clarity to an open and divisive issue, I committed to accelerate the regular process for review of the proposal and assure a Corporation vote in the fall. I therefore have asked ACURM to deliver a recommendation to me by September 30, 2024.

Historically through Brown’s process, the President has discretion to decide whether to advance an ACURM recommendation to the Corporation, but given the sustained and intense interest in this issue for so many in our community, I have promised that I will move the recommendation forward to the Corporation for consideration at its October 2024 meeting, regardless of whether ACURM votes in favor of or against recommending divestment.

While trustees and fellows of the Corporation were on campus last May, five Corporation members held informal listening sessions with two separate groups of five students each, one in support of divestment and another with concerns about divestment. Although these groups of students did not meet with the full Corporation and the topic was not on the agenda of the Corporation’s business meeting, the subgroup of Corporation members that met with students appreciated their discussions and shared their impressions with the full Corporation.

Now that the formal process of considering divestment is underway, I expect that ACURM will invite groups of community members to meet with the committee, and that ACURM will organize other ways to receive community input. The issues surrounding divestment have been the subject of vigorous discussion and debate among different groups of students, faculty, staff and alumni, and many have expressed interest in ensuring any review is informed by a range of perspectives and experiences.

I have asked that ACURM communicate to campus about its process for gathering input, and that the committee post further information on its website.

Overview of ACURM’s Charge and Summary of Guidance Provided to ACURM

ACURM will follow a process for consideration of the current divestment proposal that effectively meets the committee’s charge while ensuring that our community will have confidence in the proposal’s timely and fair review. While I am repeating here much of what I shared with the committee, the full detailed guidance I shared with ACURM is available online.

The ACURM charge offers instruction for how the committee considers any issue related to how Brown invests or expends financial resources. Specifically, the charge states:

“ACURM will carefully balance the gravity of the social harm, the potential effectiveness of various means of influencing relevant policy or conduct, the University’s need to maintain a sound financial policy, and the consistency of various proposed recommendations with the maintenance of an environment at Brown conducive to teaching and scholarly inquiry, including the Corporation Statement on Academic Freedom for Faculty and Students. ACURM shall not recommend any action that advances a position on social or political questions unrelated to the investment or expenditure of University financial resources under consideration. ACURM should be mindful that partisan political advocacy is not consistent with either Brown’s commitment to academic freedom or its status as a 501c(3) corporation.”

The charge defines “social harm” as “the harmful impact that the investment or expenditure of University financial resources may have on the University community, consumers, employees, or other persons, or on the human or natural environment.” Committee members are expected to bring their own diverse perspectives to bear on the question of whether investments in any of the companies identified by the Brown Divest Coalition constitute violations of “ethical and moral standards that are consistent with the University’s mission and values.”

ACURM’s charge also includes a specific, two-pronged test to use in the case of divestment. The committee may recommend that Brown divest, or provide “appropriate guidance to investment managers” if, after making a determination of causing social harm, at least one of two circumstances also holds true:

1. when such actions will likely have a positive impact toward correcting the specified social harm; or

2. when the company or industry in question contributes to social harm so grave that it would be inconsistent with the goals and principles of the University to accept funds from that source.

The Corporation will be interested not only in the committee members’ ruling on these standards, but also in the quality of the arguments they make. I have asked the committee chair to task committee members with writing two- to three-page synopses of the majority and (if applicable) minority opinions for any vote ACURM holds. The synopses will constitute the core of the committee’s final report, which will be made public.

In closing

I remain unwavering in my commitment to respecting Brown’s long-standing processes. Clear guidance for ACURM’s review — with sensitivity to past instances where committee recommendations have not met established protocols — should help ensure the committee’s recommendation aligns with well-established considerations of divestment questions at Brown.

I’ll reiterate that I feel it’s important to bring clarity to an open and divisive question that has been of high interest to members of our community for years. Brown has a long tradition of advocacy and activism, and also a strong record of directly tackling difficult questions with openness and respect for others.

As ACURM considers this proposal, we should and must uphold our traditions while remaining true to these values. We are a compassionate learning community.

Sincerely,

Christina H. Paxson
President