On Thursday, Nov. 21 at 2:09 PM, Vice President of Student Life Evette Castillo-Clark sent out an email to the Lewis & Clark community titled “Update on Investment Discussions Group”, containing information on the group’s proceedings and takeaways from the information provided to the IDG. Two hours later, the ASLC auditor sent an email with a link to a survey created by the Associated Student Body.
“This survey is sent out by the Associated Student Body (ASB) of Lewis and Clark College to gauge student support for the disclosure and divestment proposals presented to the Board of Trustees by the student members of the Investments Discussion Group regarding the Lewis and Clark College endowment,” the email read.
The survey will be accepting responses until Dec. 18. It results from a decision made by ASB during their Oct. 31 Senate meeting. According to the Senate minutes, publicly available through LC’s website, representatives from Students for Justice for Palestine on Palatine Hill (SJPPH), Hillel and EOC were present alongside student audience members, providing feedback to the voting Senators. After the discussions, the survey passed through the Senate unanimously.
The email sent out by VP Castillo-Clark was a requirement of the agreement made between student protestors of SJPPH and the administration which established the IDG. In a collective written statement to the Mossy Log, SJPPH provided more context.
“Having an email sent out at the conclusion of the Investments Discussion Group was an aspect of the initial agreement made between SJPPH and the administration, motivated by SJPPH’s desire to increase awareness of disclosure and divestment activities on our campus,” the statement read.
This email follows the final IDG meeting on Oct. 31, when members of SJPPH presented four proposals for divestment and disclosure to the Board of Trustees. Notably, SJPPH requested ten additional Morgan Stanley Capital International Business Involvement Screening Research (MSCI BISR) endowment screens during the meeting. These additional screens included Controversial Weapons, Nuclear Weapons, and screens for the construction and cybersecurity industries.
According to the MSCI website, the Controversial Weapons Indexes were developed for use by investors “who wish to avoid investments in cluster bombs, landmines, depleted uranium, chemical and biological weapons, blinding laser weapons, non-detectable fragments and incendiary weapons (white phosphorus).”
The Nuclear Weapons screening applies a “highly restrictive” screen, which flags all companies which directly manufacture nuclear weapons, manufacture components or delivery platforms that could be used for nuclear weapons or provide auxiliary services related to nuclear weaponry. As the screen is restrictive, it covers companies which both intentionally and unintentionally manufacture products that could be used for nuclear weapons.
Representatives from SJPPH stated that their request for these additional screens was denied by the administration.
“Administration said that they did not have any more information to disclose to us, though student members of the Investments Discussion Group had requested that 10 more screens be run.” the statement read.
Chief Financial Officer Andrea Dooley provided more information on this decision in an email statement to the Mossy Log.
“I don’t recall any discussion or requests for screening of additional weapons classifications until delivery of the final proposal. The students participating in the Investment Discussion Group made several requests for different investment screen information over the course of the group’s work, and I worked with the college’s Outsourced Chief Investment Office, Cambridge Associates, to be responsive to the requests.” Dooley said.
In previous meetings, members of SJPPH were provided the results of endowment screens for Conventional Weapons, Civilian Firearms, Israel, and ESG Controversies, colloquially referred to as a Human Rights screen. Dooley discussed why the administration denied further screenings.
“We were able to provide information on screens including civilian firearms, conventional military weapons and human rights concerns. As the group discussions continued, student requests became more broad including requests for information on the construction industry and cybersecurity generally. I declined to request these broader screens because responding to each of these requests requires significant work,” she said. “We did not want to keep adding broad screens when there wasn’t clearly identified value and use for the information the screen might yield. For example, if a screen identified that the college was invested in the construction industry, what value or action does that information provoke?”
The email by VP Castillo-Clark provided the results of these screens, and stressed “key takeaways” from the information given to the IDG. After stressing that tuition dollars are not a part of the endowment, Castillo-Clark commented on how divestment could impact the endowment.
“The vast majority of the college’s endowment is invested in commingled or private investment funds which do not provide flexibility to divest from only some companies or certain industries,” the email read. “If the college adopted targeted divestment policies, the college may be forced to exit broadly from these types of investments, even though they contain minimal exposure to the intended divestment target and provide solid returns with low associated fees. Such actions could conflict with our responsibility to ensure that the endowment is responsibly invested for the long-term financial health of the college.”
The Mossy Log asked Dooley for more context behind this claim. According to Dooley, a majority of the endowment’s assets are placed in commingled investment vehicles, consisting of multiple investors in a single fund, managed by a professional fund manager. These funds can invest in a variety of assets. Dooley elaborated on how divestment could impact this investment strategy.
“Commingled funds can offer investors a diversified portfolio, which can help ensure investments do well over the long term. They can also provide access to expert management and a range of assets that might otherwise be out of reach. If the college adopts investment restrictions it could prevent our investing in these types of vehicles.” she said.
Dooley states that divestment policies could have a potential impact on the financial health of LC, including student financial aid.
“Despite the fact that these investment vehicles may have limited or even no exposure to the types of investment of concern, if their policies don’t explicitly prohibit the potential for those exposures, the college would have to withdraw completely. This could result in the college having very limited investment options, impacting our ability to maximize returns. That scenario could have an ongoing impact on the financial health of Lewis & Clark, including in areas like financial aid that have a very direct effect on our students.” Dooley said.
In their statement to the Mossy Log, SJPPH addressed the points made by VP Castillo-Clark.
“We recognize that school emails will always frame information in a certain way, as their highest priority is the ‘long-term financial health of the college’ whereas ours is the ethical obligation to end Lewis & Clark’s complicity in genocide, human rights violations, and war crimes.” the statement read. “Lewis & Clark’s choice to include percentages of the endowment that have exposure to companies that were identified during the screening process instead of dollar values minimizes the actual amount of money that the school has invested in Israel, human rights violations, and arms manufacturing, which is actually substantial.”
Notably, the timing of the ASB survey coinciding with the email from VP Castillo-Clark was unintentional. Dooley provided more insight into the administration’s decision to send the email out to students.
“We thought it was important to make the information shared and discussed with the Investment Discussions Group available to the campus community, and it was not intentionally timed to be sent on the same day. That said, we think it’s helpful that students have the larger context and information so that they could make informed, thoughtful responses to the ASB survey.” said Dooley.
The final results of the ASB survey will be communicated to the Board of Trustees (BOT) as they weigh the proposals advanced by the IDG. When asked for a timeline, Dooley noted that it is unclear when the Board of Trustees will reach its decision.
“The students who participated in the Investment Discussion Group had the opportunity to present recommendations to a group of College Trustees. This group does not represent the full Board and is not a decision-making body. The Board Chair is discussing the recommendations from the students with other trustees and will provide a response about any next steps once she is done consulting. The timing for those steps is up to the trustees.” she said.
In their statement, SJPPH was able to provide more information on the timeline of the decision. The BOT will discuss and review a response to the proposals in early January.
“The Board of Trustees has not provided much information or transparency regarding conversations they have had after the disclosure and divestment proposal was presented on Oct. 31. It was not until Nov. 21 that it was communicated to us that the Board’s Executive Committee will discuss and review a response to the proposals at their next meeting, which will not occur until early January.”
SJPPH noted a lack of communication and transparency from the BOT. Continuing their statement, the group claimed:
“The member of the administration who sent this message stated ‘I doubt I’ll have anything new to share before January, but that doesn’t and shouldn’t suggest that things aren’t happening’. If ‘things’ are happening, we would appreciate further transparency around what such things are, especially considering the incredibly slow pace that the Board is moving at. Students present in the IDG created and presented three comprehensive proposals in under a month, and we would appreciate a reciprocal level of commitment and care from Lewis & Clark.”
The future direction of the BOT decision remains uncertain. In the interim, SJPPH seeks to encourage students at LC to vote on the ASB survey.
“SJPPH is currently working to get out the vote on the ASB survey which allows students the chance to vote on the three proposals that were presented to the board. Every Lewis & Clark student should have received an email from ASLC Auditor titled ‘ASB Divestment Survey’. The results of the survey will be affirmed by ASB and sent to the Board of Trustees for consideration. In order for the proposals to be taken seriously, we need as many students as possible to vote.”
As the IDG meetings have wrapped up, SJPPH is shifting its focus to community building and mutual aid. The statement encouraged interested students to attend their weekly meetings on Thursdays at 5 PM in the former Maggie’s Cafe.
“SJP is meant to be a space in which students should be able to find a political home on campus, and find support in endeavors related to Palestine and collective liberation. Many members of SJP have spent much of the semester focused on pressuring the administration towards disclosure and divestment and engaging in the ‘Investments Discussion Group’, but SJP also tries to prioritize community building and mutual aid which will both be increasingly focused on going forward.”
This is a developing story. The Mossy Log will continue to provide coverage on SJPPH and the results of the divestment and disclosure proposal discussions by the BOT.
About the Author
Thanks for the detailed analysis, Fiona. It\’s a rather tangled web that bears rereading.
Somehow the administration\’s excuse that they \”declined to request these broader screens because responding to each of these requests requires significant work” is rather thin – it goes without saying that these things take work.
And why would they say “we did not want to keep adding broad screens when there wasn’t clearly identified value and use for the information the screen might yield”? Anyone who has followed Israeli attacks on Palestinian society over the decades is well familiar with the broad range of weapons that Israel uses, especially on civilian populations, including white phosphorus. A very quick internet search also yields significant evidence that Israel uses, among other things, cluster munitions and depleted uranium explosives. All of these fall under the “Controversial Weapons” screen requested by SJPPH.
The request for info related to Nuclear Weapons is enormously relevant since such weapons remain Israel’s ‘weapon of last resort’ to avoid defeat; a ‘Construction’ screen could be related to everything from Israel’s use of Caterpillar D9 bulldozers to tear up streets and demolish homes and entire blocks to companies operating in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. ‘Cybersercurity’ is an important part of Israel’s big hi-tech economy, and Israel is well-known to supply snooping software to all kinds of unsavory governments. So the Administration cannot blithely discount the divestment movement’s concerns by simply asking “what value or action does [such] information provoke?”
As far as the Administration’s deflection based on its heavy investment in ‘comingled funds,’ it is difficult to say this is a purposeful strategy, but this has been used in the wake of the quite successful BDS movement against South African apartheid to ‘hide’ individual corporate investments in complex collections: see e.g.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/04/bds-omar-barghouti-israel-campus-protests?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Whatever the Administration’s motives are, their ability to claim that “these investment vehicles may have limited or even no exposure to the types of investment of concern” may suggests that they do actually have some knowledge of how ‘comingled funds’ break down into individual investments. And if the percent of a given fund invested in companies that contribute to destruction and dispossession truly is very small, perhaps the student members of the Investments Discussion Group might be willing to compromise. I certainly can’t speak for them, however.