Dear Members of the Brown Community,

Early last week, the Corporation of Brown University received the report and recommendation of the Advisory Committee on University Resources Management (ACURM) with regard to the divestment proposal submitted to the committee by the Brown Divest Coalition (BDC) in July. ACURM is a committee of the University, but operates with complete independence from the senior administration and the Corporation. Following our normal practice, the ACURM report was not made public in advance of the Corporation’s decision on the committee’s advisory opinion.

ACURM considered the BDC’s proposal that Brown divest from 10 companies that the proposal described as facilitating “the Israeli occupation of Palestinian Territory.” In its report, which is now available on the ACURM website, ACURM recommended against divestment by a vote of 8 to 2, with 1 abstention. 

Based on the strength and clarity of the ACURM report, the strong interest in the Brown community to learn ACURM’s recommendation and the Corporation’s decision as soon as possible, and the numerous discussions the Corporation has held about this issue since May, the Corporation held a special meeting yesterday to consider ACURM’s recommendation. At this meeting, the Trustees and Fellows decided they were ready to vote on the ACURM recommendation. 

The Corporation members found that ACURM’s report was thorough and thoughtful, noting in particular that ACURM considered a wide range of perspectives, informed by presentations from students in support of and in opposition to divestment, written submissions from multiple parties and numerous perspectives expressed at open listening sessions by members of the Brown community. 

The majority of the Corporation, following careful consideration and discussion of the ACURM report, voted to support the committee’s recommendation. By accepting ACURM’s recommendation, the Corporation is stating its clear position opposing divestment, and accordingly, the University will not divest.

The Corporation carefully considered ACURM’s findings on a range of issues. In particular, Corporation members noted ACURM’s finding that Brown’s exposure to the 10 companies identified in the divestment proposal is de minimis, that Brown has no direct investments in any of the companies targeted for divestment and that any indirect exposure for Brown in these companies is so small that it could not be directly responsible for social harm, as defined in ACURM’s charge. These findings alone are sufficient reason to support ACURM’s recommendation. 

The Corporation also discussed the broader issue of whether taking a stance on a geopolitical issue through divestment is consistent with Brown’s mission of education and scholarship. The Corporation reaffirmed that Brown’s mission is to discover, communicate and preserve knowledge. It is not to adjudicate or resolve global conflicts. 

In their consideration of these issues, members of the Corporation recognized that there are sharply divergent views. For several years, the conflict in Gaza and the Middle East has driven fervent calls for Brown to divest — and also spurred equally ardent opposition, demanding that Brown reject divestment. Through many conversations and thousands of emails and letters, we have heard from members of the Brown community about the wide range of deeply held views on the divestment proposal and, more generally, on the long-running Middle East conflict and the current war in Gaza. The escalating loss of life and violence in the region is, for many, deeply personal and reflects the lived experiences of Brunonians — Israelis and Palestinians, Muslims and Jews, and numerous others. These deep feelings and beliefs have resulted in tension and division within the Brown community. 

We feel it is important for all members of our community to understand the basis of the Corporation’s decision, even if some will not agree or readily accept it. Shared below are (1) further context of the factors informing the Corporation’s decision to support ACURM’s recommendation against divestment; (2) the process that guided the Corporation’s vote; and (3) reflections on next steps as our community considers some of the remaining open questions raised by ACURM in its analysis and recommendation.

Factors Informing the Corporation’s Decision

ACURM’s recommendation played a central role in the Corporation’s deliberations. The report notes that Brown has no direct investments in any of the 10 companies listed for divestment, and very small exposure in indirect investments — funds managed by external parties whose investment decisions the University does not control. ACURM’s analysis shows that, based on data from June 30, 2023, Brown’s indirect investments in the 10 companies represent only 0.009% (i.e., nine-thousandths of one percent) of their aggregate market value. ACURM states in its report:

The Committee determined that this investment is de minimis and the majority believes it is too distantly removed from “social harm” to thus justify divestment action. The majority believes that divestment would be a symbolic political statement, and therefore that the requirement of “social harm” as defined in the ACURM Charge is not satisfied.

We agree with this assessment. ACURM’s conclusion that divestment would be a symbolic political statement also raised for the Corporation an important question: When, if ever, would it be appropriate for Brown to use its endowment to make symbolic statements? Divestment is inherently a social and political action. We recognize that in two instances — Sudan and South Africa — Brown made divestment decisions that could, today, appear to be largely symbolic. While we note that there are many important differences between these cases, the Corporation felt that the current backdrop of deep divisions within our community — to say nothing of nationally — clearly distinguish this proposal. 

Furthermore, divestment would have a significant impact on the ability of Brown to fulfill its mission. The University’s mission is “to serve the community, the nation and the world by discovering, communicating and preserving knowledge and understanding in a spirit of free inquiry, and by educating and preparing students to discharge the offices of life with usefulness and reputation.” 

Brown’s mission doesn’t encompass resolving or adjudicating global conflict. Other organizations and nations do have that mission, and members of the Brown community, in Providence and around the world, are doing that important work every day. Our greatest contribution to the cause of peace for which so many members of the community have advocated is to continue to educate future leaders and produce scholarship that informs and supports their work. 

A decision to divest would greatly jeopardize our ability to continue to make this contribution. If the Corporation were to divest, it would signal to our students and scholars that there are “approved” points of view to which members of the community are expected to conform. This would be wholly inconsistent with the principles of academic freedom and free inquiry, and would undermine our mission of serving the community, the nation and the world. 

The Corporation’s decision reflects the distinct fiduciary duty that Fellows and Trustees have to Brown — a legal and ethical obligation to steward Brown so it can fulfill its mission now and far into the future. Corporation members have a responsibility to take a broad view, including considering the potential legal, reputational, financial, academic and other consequences of any decision the Corporation is asked to make, including any impact on academic freedom. In doing so, and in a manner consistent with the fiduciary standard, they put aside their personal views and exercise their best judgment in making decisions that serve the best long-term interest of the University. The Corporation exercised that responsibility in making the determination not to divest.

Process for Arriving at the Decision

The Corporation began preparing to receive the ACURM recommendation in May, when a subset of members met with groups of students in favor of and opposed to divestment. Over the course of the summer and fall, the Corporation met as a body numerous times to educate themselves about Brown’s previous divestment actions, the ACURM charge and the standards of fiduciary duty that the Corporation is obligated to follow in their role as stewards of the University. They addressed potential conflicts of interest among Corporation members and determined to hold the vote by secret ballot so that no members felt pressure to conform to a majority view. Given this extensive preparation, the comprehensiveness of the ACURM report and process, and the commitment to both sharing ACURM’s report and communicating the decision to the Brown community as soon as possible, the Corporation was fully ready to make this decision at this time.

The vote was informed by ACURM’s careful and extensive evaluative process. ACURM operated with complete independence from the senior administration and the Corporation and had access to independent legal counsel throughout. The students, faculty, staff and alumni who comprise ACURM carried out their charge in accordance with the highest objectives of shared governance. Over many hours and days, they listened deeply and fully to the numerous views and perspectives offered on all sides of this challenging and divisive issue. Whether or not members of our community agree with ACURM’s conclusion, they can be assured that the process was deliberate, inclusive, fair and participatory. 

For almost 50 years, since ACURM’s predecessor committee was established in the late 1970s, Brown has maintained a process for tackling difficult issues of community concern. Our own faculty recommended a process in 1978 whereby any member of the community could submit a proposal for divestment to ACURM and its predecessor committee. We are grateful to ACURM Chair Professor James R. Kellner and his colleagues for serving the Brown community exceptionally well in assessing and representing the diverse views and perspectives on campus during their deliberations. In addition, we want to thank the many members of our community who participated in this process, whether by presenting to ACURM or by sharing their thoughts and views.

Looking Ahead – What’s Next for our Community

Last spring, President Paxson wrote that a vote in October would bring clarity to an issue that is of long-standing interest to many members of our community. We believe that through the ACURM report and recommendation and the Corporation’s vote, we have achieved that clarity. 

There is no doubt that open questions remain. One such question, which is closely related to issues raised in the conclusion to the ACURM report, is how the bar for divestment should be set. Specifically, given the standards set forth in the ACURM charge and today’s realities in which Brown has minimal exposure to direct investments, when, if ever would there be a decision to divest? Brown’s Public Statements Policy is already clear that the University does not make institutional statements on social, political or policy matters unrelated to the University’s operations in advancing education, scholarship and discovery. Brown’s standards for divestment should be reviewed to ensure that they are aligned with this policy.

This issue, as well as other questions raised in the conclusion of the ACURM report, will be discussed by the Corporation in the future. But, for now, it is clear that the endowment should not and will not be used to take a stance on the contested geopolitical issues in the Middle East.

The manner in which our community now reflects on this decision creates an opportunity. Throughout our history, Brown as a community has been guided, even when we disagree with each other, by a deeply held campus culture characterized by mutual respect, support for each other, empathy, understanding of differences and, importantly, a willingness to engage in constructive dialogue regarding these differences. Whether you support, oppose or have no opinion on the decision of the Corporation, we hope you will do so with a commitment to sustaining, nurturing and strengthening the principles that have long been at the core of our teaching and learning community.

Sincerely,

Brian T. Moynihan 
Chancellor, Corporation of Brown University

Christina H. Paxson
President, Brown University