Hedge Fund Manager Resigns from Brown U’s Board of Trustees in Protest of Upcoming Divestment Vote on Israel

Hedge Fund Manager Resigns from Brown U’s Board of Trustees in Protest of Upcoming Divestment Vote on Israel

Edited by: Fern Sidman

In a bold move that underscores the growing tensions surrounding campus debates on Israel, top hedge fund manager Joseph Edelman has announced his resignation from Brown University’s board of trustees. According to a report in The New York Post, the decision comes in response to an upcoming vote on whether the university should divest its investments in companies that have business ties to Israel. The Post report noted that Edelman, the founder of Perceptive Advisors, a hedge fund specializing in health care and biotech, expressed his disapproval in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, accusing the university of showing “weakness” by yielding to student protesters and advancing what he perceives as a promotion of anti-Semitism.

The divestment vote, scheduled for next month, was the result of a compromise meant to quell months of on-campus protests that intensified after Israel’s military actions in Gaza, following the deadly October 7 massacre by Hamas that left 1,200 people dead. However, The Post report said that Edelman views this forthcoming vote as a dangerous precedent that reflects poorly on the university’s stance toward the growing wave of anti-Semitism, which has increasingly manifested on college campuses across the United States.

Edelman, who manages approximately $10 billion in assets through Perceptive Advisors, announced his resignation with a scathing critique of Brown University’s leadership. “As a member of the Brown University board of trustees, I disagree with the upcoming divestment vote on Israel,” he wrote in the Wall Street Journal, as per The Post report.  His concerns stem from what he sees as the university’s capitulation to what he describes as hard-left student protesters. In his op-ed, Edelman highlighted his unease over the implications of holding such a vote in the current climate, saying it raises questions about the university’s response to the surge of anti-Semitic sentiments both on campus and in broader society.

“I am concerned about what Brown’s willingness to hold such a vote suggests about the university’s attitude toward rising anti-Semitism on campus and a growing political movement that seeks the destruction of the state of Israel,” Edelman added, according to The Post, illustrating his belief that the divestment vote legitimizes anti-Israel sentiments and the broader Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

The divestment vote at Brown University has become a flashpoint in the broader conversation surrounding the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to apply economic and political pressure on Israel in response to its purported policies toward Palestinians. Modeled after the anti-apartheid campaigns that isolated South Africa, proponents of BDS advocate for investors and institutions to sever financial ties with Israel in order to pressure the country into conceding to the establishment of a Palestinian state. Supporters view it as a legitimate form of non-violent protest, designed to hold Israel accountable for its occupation of Palestinian territories.

However, the movement is deeply divisive. Critics, including Edelman, argue that BDS not only undermines Israel’s legitimacy but also fosters anti-Semitism by unfairly singling out the world’s only Jewish state for economic and political isolation. Indicated in The Post report was that Edelman, in particular, voiced outrage over the timing of the vote, coming in the aftermath of Hamas’s deadly assault on Israel.

“I find it morally reprehensible that holding a divestment vote was even considered, much less that it will be held — especially in the wake of the deadliest assault on the Jewish people since the Holocaust,” Edelman wrote in The Wall Street Journal. The Post reported that for Edelman and others, the university’s decision to move forward with the vote reflects a deeper moral failing, particularly in light of the recent violence in Israel.

He added that ”I don’t wish to imply that any real principles informed Brown’s decision to hold a divestment vote: It was made not based on facts or values but based on weakness toward student activists.”

The Post report said that Edelman’s resignation follows months of demonstrations on the Rhode Island campus, largely driven by the Brown Divest Coalition, whose supporters argue that the university’s investments make it complicit in the oppression of Palestinians.

At the core of this debate is Brown University’s decision to allow a vote on whether to divest its $6 billion endowment from companies such as Airbus, Boeing, and Volvo, which protesters claim are complicit in Israel’s military actions and the broader conflict with Palestinians. The Post report indicated that the vote, scheduled for October, comes as part of a deal between university leadership and student activists to end months of pro-Hamas demonstrations that disrupted campus life.

For Edelman and other critics, however, the decision to hold the vote is emblematic of a larger issue: the erosion of institutional integrity in the face of student pressure. “Israel, like all nations, has a moral duty to defend its citizens from terrorist attacks, and that is exactly what it has been doing,” Edelman argued, as was cited in The Post report. “It is revealing that of all the countries in the world, only Israel is expected to restrain itself because of the civilian lives that will tragically be lost in war.”

Edelman’s resignation is not the only notable response from Brown’s alumni network. Billionaire real estate mogul Barry Sternlicht also expressed his discontent by halting donations to the university, underscoring the financial and reputational risks Brown faces as it navigates this contentious issue, The Post report explained. Sternlicht, like Edelman, believes that the university’s decision to hold the divestment vote is a direct consequence of caving to student-led demonstrations, which he argues have gone beyond peaceful protest to promote anti-Semitism and violence on campus.

Edelman went further, criticizing the university for failing to discipline activists who, according to him, have disrupted campus life and broken school rules. “The university leadership has for some reason chosen to reward, rather than punish, the activists for disrupting campus life, breaking school rules, and promoting violence and anti-Semitism at Brown,” he wrote in The Wall Street Journal, as was noted in The Post report. This sentiment reflects a broader frustration among certain alumni who feel that Brown has lost its commitment to open, respectful dialogue in favor of appeasing vocal activist groups.

In response to the mounting criticism, Brown University has defended its decision to hold the vote. Brian Clark, a spokesperson for the university, rejected the notion that the vote is an endorsement of the protesters’ views. “While we value the service of our former trustee, he has a fundamental misunderstanding of the decisions that led to the upcoming vote on divestment,” Clark said, according to The Post report, emphasizing that the university’s role is to foster debate on difficult issues.

According to Clark, any member of the university community has the right to propose a divestment initiative, and the fact that such a proposal is being voted on does not “pre-determine the merit or outcome.” He further explained to The Post that Brown’s commitment to interrogating complex issues is central to its mission as an educational institution. Clark’s statement suggests that Brown views the vote not as a political endorsement of divestment but as part of the university’s broader responsibility to engage with controversial topics.