Megan Ziegele/The Mossy Log
The Board of Trustees has approved an update to the college’s Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) investment strategy. The update comes after months of work and discussion between students and the administration. On the afternoon of Oct. 17, the Board voted to divest from arms manufacturing and change its investment policy more broadly to reflect human rights concerns.
The adoption of this new investment policy marks the conclusion of a process that began in May 2024 with student protests against the school’s endowment policy. However, the announcement leaves some students feeling the administration has overly depoliticized the divestment by removing language around the Israel/Palestine conflict. On Oct. 23, the college released a statement affirming its position containing a quote from Board of Trustees Chair Paula Hayes ’92.
“We are not interested in considering divestment from companies incorporated in or headquartered in Israel, or specifically related to the current conflict in Israel/Palestine. Unfortunately, various social media posts and other stories have mischaracterized the Board’s action, implying it is related to Israel. This is inaccurate,” Hayes’ statement read.
After the start of the recent Israel-Hamas war on Oct. 7, 2023, some members of the campus community — including those involved with Students for Justice in Palestine of Palatine Hill (SJPPH) — felt that it was unethical of the school to hold potential investment ties to Israel amid international accusations of war crimes and genocide in Gaza. These ties include any civilian companies incorporated in Israel. Students, and in particular SJPPH, demanded the school fully disclose its investments in these Israeli companies, as well as weapons manufacturing, and begin the process of divestment.
These demands came to a head in September 2024 when students affiliated with SJPPH formed an encampment at Frank Manor House. Following discussions with administration, students agreed to take down the encampment in exchange for the administration granting terms which included the creation of the Investments Discussion Group (IDG) and amnesty for those involved in the encampment. The discussion group, made up of staff, faculty and students, sought to create dialogue on potential divestment.
“The goal of the Investments Discussion Group is to explore concerns regarding Lewis & Clark’s endowment. The group will provide interested L&C students with the opportunity to propose their recommendations to the Board of Trustees,” wrote President Robin Holmes-Sullivan in a September 27, 2024 email to the LC community.
By October 2024, the IDG had requested a series of Morgan Stanley Capital International Business Involvement Screening Research (MSCI BISR) endowment screenings. These screenings are created to identify and manage exposure to companies involved in certain actions, and include screens for Conventional Weapons, Civilian Firearms, Israel and ESG Controversies & Global Norms, colloquially referred to by SJPPH as a human rights screen, which scans for investments in companies flagged for potential involvement in human rights abuses.
The next month, results of the screening process — released in an email from then-Vice President of Student Life and Dean of Students Evette Castillo-Clark — revealed that 0.3% of the endowment was flagged by the Conventional Weapons screen for exposure to companies “that derive more than 5% of their revenue connected to the production of conventional military weapons,” totaling approximately $983,000 worth of investments. This screen includes companies involved with the production of conventional weapons or weapons components as well as companies indirectly involved through ownership ties to other companies. Two specific companies mentioned were Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, with the rest in four commingled funds associated with weapons manufacturing.
The ESG Controversies screen, which might flag investments associated with anything from toxic emissions to civil rights lawsuits, noted one unspecified company at a total of 0.07%, or around $229,000. The screen for Israel, which flags any company incorporated within the country, came to 0.71%, roughly $3.2 million. According to an Oct. 2024 interview with LC Chief Financial Officer Andrea Dooley, these companies include: “Various companies that are in healthcare and information technology market sectors that happen to be organized in Israel.”
Additionally, the college’s endowment was found to have no exposure to the manufacturing of civilian firearms. The same day the results of the screens were released, the Associated Student Body sent surveys gauging student support for two divestment proposals. According to the ASB Senate minutes from Jan. 29, 2025, the survey revealed that 83% of respondents supported the direct divestment proposal from SJPPH. The direct divestment proposal included divestment from anything flagged by the MSCI BISR Military Weapons screen, ESG Controversies & Global Norms, as well as the Israel screen. The indirect divestment proposal contained similar language, but also covered mutual funds with some exposure to those companies.
In April 2025, Hayes formed the Investment Subcommittee to Consider Updates to ESG Principles to further examine the divestment proposals. The subcommittee, which comprised students, faculty and administration, held a series of discussions regarding the viability of various divestment proposals before reaching final conclusions in July. The final proposals were then set to be discussed in October by the Board, in accordance with the Board’s meeting schedule.
On Oct.16 and 17, the Board met in Smith Hall to vote on subcommittees recommended changes to investment strategy. During those meetings, SJPPH held demonstrations outside Smith expressing firm support for the divestment proposals.
A post on SJPPH’s Instagram read, “Show up, let the board know LC does not stand for our school funding genocide.”
In the courtyard outside the hall, papers posted in the ground commemorated many of the dead in Gaza and T-shirts draped over the surrounding stone fence read “Jews Say Let Gaza Live.”
By the early afternoon on Oct. 17, the Board announced that it would divest from arms manufacturing qualified as such by the MSCI Military Weapons screen, as well as annually disclose its arms-related investments going forward. According to the college’s website, the endowment’s current direct exposure under this screen is 0.07%, approximately $226,870, with indirect weapons exposures accounting for 0.2% of the portfolio, around $648,200.
Erin Connelly ’27 was present at the announcement and spoke to The Mossy Log about their opinion on the decision.
“(The announcement) came in a series of confusing partial statements. Non-Board of Trustees members started to trickle out of the voting session and told us that the news looked good,” Erin Connelly said. “They said the Board had voted to divest, but they were short on details and couldn’t answer questions about the extent of divestment — only direct weapons manufacturing? More? Finally, an actual Board member came out and gave us the details. Honestly, I was more surprised than anything.”
To better understand what this divestment will look like for LC, The Mossy Log interviewed Dooley, as well as Board Secretary and Chief of Staff David Reese and Public Relations Director Lois Leveen.
Dooley clarified what actual changes were being made to the college’s policy. Namely, the school’s investment manager, Cambridge Investment Research, will flag any potential human rights issues or weapons manufacturing for review in the future. In the meantime, the school’s direct investments in conventional weapons manufacturing will be divested.
“It’s a reactionary kind of stance,” Dooley said. “As far as being able to make sure that, when there are flags, we’re evaluating that the folks that we work with are doing the diligence and helping us come to a conclusion about whether or not the flag is something that we should respond to. The MSCI reporting that we use to evaluate flags, they specifically say that they’re not judging or making an assessment of whether or not an allegation is true, they’re just flagging allegations. ”
When asked about the timeline of this divestment from arms manufacturing, Dooley stated that the school had already begun the process.
“Friday (Oct. 17), after the Board approved, our Investment Committee Chair reached out to Cambridge advisors and told them that the new policy had passed, and asked them to start the process of divesting any holdings that we have,” Dooley said. “I expect that’ll happen in the next couple of weeks.”
However, Dooley noted that while the school’s investments will be flagged for indirect weapons investment, these indirect investments will not be immediately divested.
“We strive to minimize indirect exposures to weapons manufacturers, but there is not a strict divestment,” she said.
This approach seeks to mitigate financial concerns the school had about divestment.
“The reason why the Board adopted it in that way was to address concerns that they would have as fiduciaries to manage the returns of the college endowment,” Dooley said.
Dooley, as well as Castillo-Clark, previously expressed concerns regarding the financial impacts divestment might have on LC. Dooley expressed that, because of the careful considerations the board took in implementing this policy, she is no longer concerned that there will be a negative impact on the financial health of the college.
Throughout the conversation, Dooley and Reese also made clear that this policy change was intended to better reflect the values of the school.
“The college seeks to align its portfolio with institutional values as expressed in our mission statement. So at a high level, our values around sustainability, around climate, around human rights, are appropriately reflected in our investment policy,” Reese said.
Reese emphasized the influence students had on this process.
“I think student voices were instrumental and important in starting a conversation a number of years ago around fossil fuels and sustainability factors in our investment approach, and I think student voices were important over the last year in starting a conversation about weapons and human rights that influenced the changes that the board approved last week,” he said.
Leveen also praised student involvement in the process.
“Students were involved, and I think also got a sense of what you have to do to bring a proposal to the Board, to have it be persuasive,” Leveen said. “How do you actually create something that’s going to be an effective way to move policy forward? That’s a long process the students are really involved in.”
Reese and Leveen also expressed that, to them, the decision to divest was not about Israel specifically.
“I would say, we know that people have been posting on social media in ways to say that this is divestment from a particular country. We don’t have anything that directs investments to or from any particular country,” Leveen said.
On Oct. 22, The Mossy Log attended a press conference held by SJPPH in response to the Board’s decision on divestment.
“After 18 months, the student movement has succeeded in the effort with a functional divestment from genocide. Despite the administration’s attempts to depoliticize this vote, we must understand that this was a completely political act only done after immense pressure,” Sam Peak ’27 said to open the press conference.
Peak then spoke on why SJPPH views this decision as a victory.
“Lewis & Clark will not be invested in the bombing of hospitals and schools. Lewis & Clark will not be invested in the companies whose bullets Israeli snipers have shot through the necks of children for the past 77 years. In the coming years, we will be able to see that these promises are kept through the disclosure of investments,” Peak said. “This fight is far from over. And divestment is only a small piece of the movement towards a free Palestine. But this is a win and we must recognize it.”
This sense of victory seems to be shared across SJPPH. Natalie Connelly ’26, who facilitated the press conference, expressed what divestment means for them.
“It means a lot … I’ve been a part of pushing for this since my sophomore year. So I think, even just personally, it’s very meaningful.”
Natalie Connelly credits those who wrote the proposal for the decision that was ultimately made.
“The amount of work that they put into the proposal is just really, really impressive,” they said.
When asked what they thought most swayed the board in this decision, Natalie Connelly answered, “I think it was bringing in SFSU (San Francisco State University),” referring to SFSU’s previous divestment from arms manufacturing in August 2024. “They were really crucial to the process. I wasn’t in the discussion group, but I do know how crucial SFSU was in showing the school and the board how to replicate (divestment).”
Dooley also noted the influence of bringing in another school as a model for the divestment process.
“We had a speaker from another private institution similar to ours that had gone through a similar process at their institution. And so they were someone who kind of came and also helped provide some context and information about potentially ways to look at the proposals,” Dooley said.
Leveen indicated that the college would not reveal the name of this institution out of courtesy.
SJPPH hopes that LC can similarly become an example for other schools and institutions considering divestment.
“We hope that this win on campus is just the beginning,” Natalie Connelly said at the press conference.
Portland City Councilman Mitch Green, who could not attend the press conference, echoed this sentiment in a written statement to be read aloud in his absence.
“These local actions have profound impacts on the other schools, cities, and the world. It starts with us,” Green wrote.
For the time being, the administration feels its policy is more reflective of its values.
“Our ESG policy, or ESG principles in our policy, are at the level that is appropriate for reflecting institutional values,” Reese said.
While some students have expressed concern with the decision, there is also some satisfaction.
Erin Connelly expressed a tentative pride, despite some discontent with LC’s removal of political language from the decision.
“I’m very glad that we’ve divested at least from direct weapons manufacturing and I’m cautiously optimistic,” they said. “I’m deeply proud to be part of a campus community that fought so hard for divestment and won.”
The board’s vote to divest from arms manufacturing marks a significant change in the college’s investment policy and the culmination of more than a year of student advocacy and discussion. The update signals a shift toward greater transparency and alignment with the college’s stated values.
About the Author
1 thought on “College decides to divest from weapons funds”