{"id":941,"date":"1985-12-12T16:01:42","date_gmt":"1985-12-13T00:01:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/schoenblog.com\/?p=941"},"modified":"2016-09-19T16:03:26","modified_gmt":"2016-09-19T23:03:26","slug":"faculty-views-on-divestment-against-general-divestment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/schoenblog.com\/?p=941","title":{"rendered":"Faculty Views on Divestment: Against General Divestment"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Fb-Button\"\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>
<\/fb:like><\/div>
<\/div><\/div>

\u201cFACULTY VIEWS ON DIVESTMENT IN FAVOR OF GENERAL DIVESTMENT\u201d<\/p>\n

Nassau Weekly Article (12\/12\/85)<\/p>\n

By Randy Schoenberg<\/p>\n

\u201cThere is a consistent pattern to the moral utterings of academicians,\u201d says Uwe Reinhardt. \u201cThey tend to be vacuous.\u201d Reinhardt, a professor of Economics at the Woodrow Wilson School, echoes the sentiment of many faculty members who opposed the motion for general divestment from companies which operate in South Africa. He disagrees with the claim of divestment advocates that the faculty and the University have a responsibility to set a moral example. \u201cWe don\u2019t impart high moral values,\u201d he says. \u201cWe remind you of them. We do not lead. We are not moral beacons. I think that\u2019s quite all right. I admire the faculty for its expertise, and I personally feel it\u2019s enough. But beacons or guides for moral conduct we are not.\u201d<\/p>\n

Says Marion Levy, \u201cI don\u2019t think the University builds character. I don\u2019t hear people out in society say that we are a moral beacon.\u201d Levy believes that the purpose of the University is embodies in creation, preservation, and transmission of knowledge. \u201cAs a matter of values,\u201d he says, \u201cI think knowledge and the University are ends in themselves.\u201d<\/p>\n

Politicization<\/p>\n

Henry Bienen, who specializes in African political economics, argues against the politicization of the University in opposing general divestment. \u201cThe people who are for it,\u201d says Bienen, \u201ctheir aim is to politicize the University. The aim of general divestment is to take political stands. Having the University act as a political policy actor is something I don\u2019t like.\u201d Levy agrees, \u201cIf we simply become another political forum, we won\u2019t be effective, and we\u2019ll wreck the University.\u201d<\/p>\n

The faculty vote disturbed Seymour Bogdonoff of the Mechanical Engineering Department. \u201cI am very worried about the political implications of the vote. I resent being placed in a position of having the University take a political position, even one supported by a majority of the faculty, because it binds me in a political sense.\u201d Like Levy, Bogdonoff believes that the University should not act politically as an institution. \u201cI do not agree with the premise,\u201d Bogdonoff says, \u201cThat the faculty should take a political position. I object to that. The University is a place where individuals take stands as individuals. We\u2019re the wrong kind of institution to do this.\u201d<\/p>\n

Con\u2026<\/p>\n

Robert Tignor of the History Department believes that the University should take some sort of action, but feels that politicization is a problem. \u201cThe University shouldn\u2019t be taking lots of political stances,\u201d he says. \u201cHopefully, we won\u2019t be polled on this and that.\u201d Levy believes members of the faculty who support general divestment are inconsistent in their condemnations of international injustice. \u201cThe same people who are so excited about this issue,\u201d he says, \u201cnever said anything about Cambodia\u2014not one of these people ever mentioned that.\u201d<\/p>\n

Bienen feels that failing to divest is not a political statement. \u201cI don\u2019t believe that not divesting is as political as divesting,\u201d he says. The University depends on industry and the government, Bogdonoff says, and must necessarily interact with them regardless of politics. \u201cWe consider ourselves a private university,\u201d he says, \u201cbut we\u2019re not. We couldn\u2019t be a university without government and industry support.\u201d<\/p>\n

Boycott v. Divestment<\/p>\n

Most of the anti-divestment sentiment stems from a strong conviction of the complete failure of divestment, both as a moral gesture and as a tool for reform in South Africa. Reinhardt argues that there are three facets of a corporation: the operations (products), stocks and bonds, and assets (buildings, machinery). To show a corporation that the University is displeased, it must affect one or more three areas. An institution like Princeton cannot readily affect a corporation\u2019s assets, but it can manipulate stocks, bonds, and products. \u201cThe thing with stocks and bonds,\u201d he says, \u201cis that if you didn\u2019t buy them, you can be sure someone else will. If you hurt a corporation through their operating pipe, there they will not find another buyer. If you wanted to hurt a corporation, you should boycott its product. Divestment would be the last thing you would think of.\u201d:<\/p>\n

Levy gives IBM as an example of a company which would be affected by a boycott. \u201cIf you really want to hurt IBM, don\u2019t turn over the influence to people less concerned than you are. Stop buying their machines. Don\u2019t use their typewriters, computer and programs.\u201d Reinhardt agrees, \u201cBy buying and using their machines, we are facilitating IBM\u2019s marketing program.\u201d<\/p>\n

Bienen sees an inherent contradiction in divesting from companies like IBM. He adds, \u201c I think people have slipped over these issue. You can\u2019t say divest and solicit gifts.\u201d<\/p>\n

Einhardt also points to the University\u2019s relationship with IBM. \u201cHow can it be moral and decent,\u201d he asks, \u201cto own IBM equipment but say that company is too soiled for us to own their stock? How can you write a petition [as the faculty resolution in favor of divestment] on an IBM\/PC?\u201d Levy notes that two of the strongest supporters of the divestment movement are in the Religion Department, which has been given a considerable grant from IBM. \u201cThere has been no movement to demand that they reject those funds,\u201d Levy asserts. \u201cThey want the University to divest, but they haven\u2019t asked their own department. Apparently divestment, like charity, frequently does not begin at home.\u201d<\/p>\n

Selective Divestment<\/p>\n

Selective divestment was not discussed at the meeting after the original resolution succeeded. \u201cI felt that those in favor of total divestment should have the ability to discuss their measure,\u201d says Tignor. Unlike Levy, Reinhardt, Bienen and Bogdonoff, Tignor was not unhappy with the approved resolution. \u201cIf I had thought that the [general divestment] resolution would win, even have a fair chance not to be defeated resoundingly, I would have sat back and said, \u2018Sure. Let\u2019s go!\u2019 \u201d<\/p>\n

Bienen is an ardent supporter of selective divestment. \u201cThere will be companies,\u201d he says,\u201dthat one would not want to hold share in, morally.\u201d He proposes a three-point decision-making procedure whereby corporations could be judged on a case-by-case basis. Under this plan, the University would choose to divest for any of the following three reasons: one, making equipment which is directly used for repression; two, not responding to inquiry by the University; and three, not abiding by the Sullivan principles, guidelines for fair employment practices. \u201cSelective divestment is a very different view,\u201d Bienen says, \u201cwith different implications and motives. It has some problems, but they are a different order of magnitude [from total divestment].\u201d<\/p>\n

Levy entirely rejects selective divestment. \u201cWhat I say applies as much to the watered-down alternative amendment,\u201d he states. Levy considers any form of divestment as inappropriate moral posturing by the University.<\/p>\n

Reactions to the student activism which occurred last spring were mixed. \u201cThe Coalition did a super job,\u201d says Tignor. \u201cThe 270 [faculty] signatures were really generated by their enthusiasm.\u201d Levy, however, feels that the students efforts could have been better spent lobbying in Washington. \u201cI think the students are wrong,\u201d he says. \u201cThe University is not where they should be spending their interests. When the weather turns wonderful, the demonstrations start. I don\u2019t take them very seriously.\u201d Bogdonoff disagrees with the stance that the student activists have taken, but thinks that their involvement is important. \u201cI approve of student activism. It gets out hand once in a while, but I\u2019m much more for active students than apathy.\u201d<\/p>\n

Reinhardt believes that more could be done to reform corporations by buying stock. \u201cI think you should not divest,\u201d he says, \u201cbut buy more stock, combine with like-minded institutions and mutual fund managers, go to stockholders\u2019 meetings and throw your weight around.\u201d He says that while Princeton by itself may not have more than 2% of a corporation\u2019s stock, the entire Ivy League may hold a significant block, enough to dictate a change in company policy. Bogdonoff agrees, \u201cI think that you ought to increase your investment in South Africa, not divest. This gesture of divestment may make people feel good for a moment, but I don\u2019t understand how it will help.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cEmpty Gesture\u201d<\/p>\n

The whole question of what the faculty vote was intended to accomplish bothers most of these professors. Bogdonoff sees it as an empty and inconsistent gesture. \u201cThis business of making these gestures from the University point of view is bad,\u201d he argues, \u201cbecause there are many, many issues which are just as bad as South Africa.\u201d<\/p>\n

Reinhardt sees the faculty discussion in a more cynical light. \u201cIt\u2019s even cheaper than smoking pot. They just engage in afternoons of exquisite rhetoric.\u201d He also points out how ineffectual the vote was as a moral gesture or symbolic act. \u201cThe New York Times<\/em> and Wall Street Journal<\/em> did not even pick it up. If the faculty had decided to boycott it would have been covered by the Wall Street Journal<\/em>. I find it very significant that the world took no notice of Princeton\u2019s moral chirping.\u201d<\/p>\n

Levy also complained about the emptiness of the faculty\u2019s gesture, \u201cIt was a cheap, costless gesture. What they would have loved is front page coverage in the New York Times<\/em>. If they had indicated a willingness to bear the cost of their actions, that would have made the Times<\/em>. The faculty is conspicuous in making such gestures as long as they are costless to the faculty concerned.\u201d At the meeting, Levy suggested that the faculty offer a cut in salaries to support the costs of divestment, if any. The suggestion was ignored by the proponents of the divestment resolution. Bogdonoff explained the futility of Levy\u2019s attempt, \u201cIt\u2019s hard to get them to say that they\u2019ll take less of anything to make this happen.\u201d<\/p>\n

All of the professors interviewed expect the Trustees to brush off the faculty recommendation and proceed with selective divestment as outlined in Bienen and Tignor\u2019s resolution. Reinhardt feels that, as businessmen, the Trustees act more responsibly than the faculty which he characterizes as childish. \u201cI have more faith in the moral convictions of the Trustees because,\u201d he says, \u201cthey are businessmen, constantly assaulted by temptation and moral problems.\u201d Bogdonoff has little respect for the faculty in this area as well. \u201cMost members of the faculty,\u201d he says, \u00ad\u00ad\u201care totally irresponsible when it comes to questions of finances. They do not think through decisions which have long-term impacts, and which might affect faculty and students for generations to come.\u201d<\/p>\n

Reinhardt sees many other positive actions which the faculty could take if they were willing to sacrifice something for oppressed South Africans. A surtax on salaries could support scholarships to students and leaders in exile. In 1979 the faculty decided to sponsor fellowships for disadvantaged South Africans. This action was quickly forgotten, as Levy reveals, \u201cIn the six years since then, one graduate fellowship was given (and later abandoned), and four or five undergraduate scholarships. Only one of the supporters [of the 1979 resolution] ever even inquired about the fellowships. I don\u2019t take such people seriously.\u201d As for the faculty and its influence on the rest of the world, Reinhardt offers this analysis: \u201cAcademia is set up to keep faculty members in a perennial state of infancy or adolescence. Society presumably says we\u2019re just like children. By and large I think the world just smiles at us.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u201cFACULTY VIEWS ON DIVESTMENT IN FAVOR OF GENERAL DIVESTMENT\u201d Nassau Weekly Article (12\/12\/85) By Randy Schoenberg \u201cThere is a consistent pattern to the moral utterings of academicians,\u201d says Uwe Reinhardt. \u201cThey tend to be vacuous.\u201d Reinhardt, a professor of Economics … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-941","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/schoenblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/941","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/schoenblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/schoenblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/schoenblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/schoenblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=941"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/schoenblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/941\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":942,"href":"https:\/\/schoenblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/941\/revisions\/942"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/schoenblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=941"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/schoenblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=941"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/schoenblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=941"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}