|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Edited by: Fern Sidman
Brown University is facing a critical decision that could have far-reaching legal and ethical consequences. According to a recently published report in The Jerusalem Post, the university’s trustees and fellows are preparing to vote in October on a proposal to divest from companies with business ties to Israel. The report noted that they are under significant pressure from various state officials, who warn that such a move could violate anti-Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) laws in nearly three-fourths of the United States. This development has sparked a heated debate, not only about the legal ramifications but also about the broader implications of adopting a policy that is clearly anti-Semitic and unlawful.
As per the information provided in The JPost report, the controversy at Brown University began when the Brown Divest Coalition (BDC) established a protest encampment on the Brown College Green on April 24, demanding that the university divest from companies it accuses of being complicit in alleged Israeli military actions in Gaza. The companies targeted for divestment include major corporations such as Textron, Safariland, Volvo Group, Airbus, Boeing, General Dynamics, General Electric, Motorola, and RTX Corporation, the JPost report indicated. The BDC’s protest is part of a broader movement within certain segments of academia and activism that seeks to challenge and sanction Israeli policies through economic means.
However, the BDC’s actions have not gone unchallenged. On the contrary, they have attracted significant opposition from 24 state attorneys general, led by Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin. As was indicated in the JPost report, in a letter sent to Brown’s trustees and fellows, the state officials argued that adopting the BDC’s proposal would be both anti-Semitic and unlawful. They warned that if Brown were to divest from the companies in question, the university would face “immediate and profound legal consequences.”
The core of the legal argument against Brown’s proposed divestment lies in the anti-BDS laws that have been enacted in 37 states across the United States. These laws prohibit state entities from contracting with, investing in, or otherwise doing business with organizations that engage in discriminatory practices against Israel, Israelis, or entities that conduct business with Israel, as was reported by the JPost. If Brown University were to divest from companies with ties to Israel, it could trigger these anti-BDS laws, leading to severe legal and financial repercussions.
The JPost also reported that the attorneys general outlined several potential consequences for Brown University, should it proceed with the divestment:
Termination of State Relationships: States could terminate any existing contracts or agreements with Brown University and its affiliates. This could include research partnerships, funding arrangements, and other forms of collaboration that are vital to the university’s operations.
Divestment from University Debt: State pension plans and other investment programs that hold Brown University debt could be compelled to divest, potentially destabilizing the university’s financial standing and affecting its ability to fund long-term projects.
Cessation of Business Interactions: States may also choose to refrain from engaging in any future business dealings with Brown University, further isolating the institution and limiting its ability to attract investment and support from public entities.
These legal consequences illustrate the high stakes involved in the upcoming vote. The attorneys general have made it clear that they view the proposed divestment not just as a political statement, but as a direct violation of state laws designed to protect against discrimination based on national origin and religious affiliation.
The agreement between Brown University and the BDC was a compromise designed to de-escalate tensions on campus while addressing the demands of anti-Israel activists. Under the terms of the agreement, the BDC agreed to dismantle their encampment and cease unauthorized demonstrations for the remainder of the academic year. The JPost reported that in exchange, Brown’s administration committed to a series of actions that included a meeting between BDC members and the Brown University Corporation, consideration of the BDC’s divestment proposal by the Advisory Committee on University Resource Management (ACURM), and a vote by the Corporation on the divestment issue. Additionally, the university promised that no “retaliation” would be taken against the activists involved in the protests.
The agreement was a significant concession by the university, especially given that Brown President Christina Paxson had previously expressed concerns about the encampment and the rising tensions on campus. As explained in the JPost report, on April 30, Paxson stated that she could not “condone the encampment, which was in violation of University policies,” and voiced her worries about the “escalation in inflammatory rhetoric” and the broader trend of increasing tensions at campuses across the country.
Despite her earlier reservations, President Paxson took steps to accelerate the terms of the agreement on August 1, 2024. Indicated in the JPost report was that in a letter to the Brown community, Paxson emphasized the importance of addressing the divestment issue, which she described as “an open and divisive question that has been of high interest to members of our community for years.” She reiterated Brown’s commitment to fostering a culture of advocacy and activism, while also emphasizing the university’s tradition of tackling difficult issues with “openness and respect for others.”
Paxson’s August 1 letter signaled her intent to move forward with the process, ensuring that the divestment proposal submitted by the BDC would be carefully considered by ACURM. She outlined the committee’s mandate to weigh the university’s need for sound financial policy against the potential social harm of investments in companies with ties to Israel, as per the JPost report. The committee would also consider the effectiveness of divestment as a tool for influencing broader social and political issues.
ACURM was tasked with issuing a recommendation by September 30, which Paxson promised to forward to the Brown University Corporation for consideration at its October meeting, regardless of the committee’s stance on the matter.
For Brown, the upcoming vote by the Corporation in October will be a defining moment. The decision will likely reverberate beyond the university, influencing how other academic institutions approach similar issues in the future. If the Corporation votes in favor of divestment, Brown could become a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over the BDS movement, potentially triggering legal battles and straining relationships with state governments. Conversely, if the Corporation rejects the divestment proposal, the university may face backlash from activists and students who see the decision as a betrayal of their values and a capitulation to external pressure.
