“Divestment from companies profiting from the war” DOES NOT EQUAL “Divestment from Israeli companies” and it certainly does not equal “divestment from companies doing business in Israel”. The most famously boycotted companies are Starbucks and Coca Cola. Neither are being divested from.

Would be a travesty if this market resolves yes.

@FoxKHTML The most recent post from Matty took issue only with the commitment and timeline of divestments, not with them being exclusively and exhaustively anti-Israel to the point of including Starbucks. Since that post, committed divestment decisions have been made, hence the high Yes.

Union Seminary (effectively a college of Columbia that has its own endowment) has voted Yes on divesting from Israel.

https://utsnyc.edu/union-theological-seminary-board-of-trustees-endorses-divestment-and-other-strategies-for-companies-profiting-from-war-in-palestine-israel/

@Panfilo I think this is the wrong link?

@DanMan314 fixed

@Panfilo This seems quite different from "divestment from Israel" as the targets are "companies profiting from war in Palestine/Israel", quoting the title.

So the board would hypothetically endorse divestment from a Saudi company that sells oils to Hamas, but not an Israeli consumer tech company.

@CLI This sounds like a deliberate misreading of the spirit of the market, the goals of the protestors, and the effect of the policy. UTS's action may well also include divestment from some non-Israeli companies, but is clearly intended to for example divest from military industrial suppliers of Israel's side of the conflict. It's a core objective of the BDS movement, and the market does not state or imply exclusivity of this sort of outcome.

@Panfilo What are the protestors stating in their goals?

@CLI UTS is part of Columbia. The Columbia protestors kicked off the large scale protest movement and are the most well-documented protestors in the country regarding the movement in question. This divestment was in response to them.

Sacramento State is divesting $4.5 million from stocks indirectly related to the war. I think this is a Yes because although the stocks are "indirect" the description does not specify military industrial stocks, and they are absolutely being chosen due to association with Israel (and other actors) in response to pro-Palestine protests. But I'm not betting higher for obvious reasons. @mattyb

https://abc7news.com/post/sacramento-state-becomes-cas-1st-university-to-align-with-pro-palestinian-protesters-demands/14788870/

@Panfilo Yea I think this is probably a YES, assuming the University actually announces it at some point? The argument against is that the $4.5m number comes from students, not the university itself. The University itself as far as I can tell has not made any specific announcement around divestment? The only thing I can find is a kinda bland statement around opposing genocide.

There is a "statement sent to CapRadio":

In a statement sent to CapRadio, Sac State officials said they “have created a policy on socially responsible investment,” and that they “believe it’s important that our efforts to fund students’ education do not rely upon us benefiting from companies that profit from ethnic cleansing, genocide, or human rights violations.”

I can't find that policy though, unless it's the one I linked above.

Somewhat meta take: I think the cumulative "vibe" between this and other examples does meet the spirit of the market at this point.

@DanMan314 Yeah I expect we'll get more info on this one in the next 20 days, as with other colleges the plan got updated on their websites within a few days. The Union Seminary one seems like a Yes by itself since they did the thing Brown will be doing in October and actually voted Yes to divesting.

While the description says US colleges, I'd like to note that Trinity Dublin has announced actual divestment from some Israeli business. This sets a precedent that would be an unambiguous Yes if it happened at a US college. They are looking into more divestments, but have already agreed to others.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/10/world/europe/ireland-trinity-dublin-palestinian-protests-divest.html

Occidental is holding a vote "By June 6th". So it is entirely possible that they do so this month.

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/occidental-college-plans-to-vote-on-divestment-from-israel/

https://twitter.com/sahouraxo/status/1786449878849102218?t=zv2Q_eLXCWURtZDWVTGB1A&s=19

@IasonKoukas We'd have to read the actual document to see if it was intended to take action or just research.

Here is a link to the actual agreement:
https://www.evergreen.edu/sites/default/files/2024-05/2024-04-30-mou-scanned-with-signatures.pdf

I think it's clearly in the Yes camp in a way that UC Riverside wasn't, because it both explicitly mentions Palestine and more importantly, because it includes this language:

"This task force will work with the Foundation and the college to establish the soonest time recommendations can be made and acted upon... with the implementation of the divestment policy to begin during Spring quarter 2025 and completed by Spring 2026."

The ellipses cover additional timeline details. So while the creation of an advising committee has been ambiguous at other schools, I believe this one explicitly has teeth, and the research period is just to deal with the already discussed complex process of exposing and selecting investments to remove or replace (especially since they are beholden to define and find socially responsible alternatives).

@mattyb Can this resolve Yes?

@Panfilo To be honest, this doesn't seem that different from UCR? There is stronger language on the task force, but it structurally is a very similar agreement.

Arguments for NO:

• Announcing that they are "charging" a committee with "proposing revisions", to "convene in the end of Spring quarter 2024", before "consideration by the Foundation and College" in fall 2024. So no specific commitments around divestment.

• References "companies that profit from gross humans rights exploitations and/or the occupation of Palestinian terroritories", not specifically Israel

YES:

• The language on the committee does seem stronger than UC Riverside. There is a commitment to complete divestment by Spring 2026.

• Students advocating for divestment are treating this as a win

• The divestment is explicitly the context of Palestine this time

I want to stress again I'm happy with whatever's decided and precommit to a 5 star review on this market regardless of the outcome.

@DanMan314 I think the first No bullet is poking holes in the fact that we have a timeline and it involves discussion at all. The first Yes bullet undermines it and makes clear what the commitment/purpose of the signed document is. The second No bullet, I just think is mincing words, and Matty didn't have an issue with UCR not having any mention of the specific issue.

@Panfilo Agreed on the second bullet, was just following the same format as my other list.

As for the first, again not knowing the exact criteria of the market I’m not going to guess. If it requires a commitment to specific divestments seems like a no, otherwise could be a yes. I think the key phrases I was trying to point out is that the foundation/college is only committing to considering the future committee recommendations. But that may well be sufficient for yes.

@DanMan314 I think the biggest swing for me is that it's commited to implementing a divestment policy on that new ethical standard regarding Palestine, and you can't "implement" a divestment policy with no actual divestments. Previous committees did not have this commitment.

@DanMan314 CBS is reporting this as an agreement to divest, and distinguinshing it from earlier deals. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/divest-israel-what-does-it-mean-college-university-endowment-cbs-news-explains/

Notably, this article doesn't cover the more recent few days of divestment news from other small colleges, so I think we're past the point of critical mass now.

Announcement of a study for divestment? Sure! Announcement that they're commencing divestment! Doubtful! Announcement that they've completed divestment? Almost impossible. Fiduciary duty for these trustees is going to dictate a long process.

@RussellBatemanBuckley So based on the conversations thus far it sounds like the resolution is somewhere between your first and second sentences. Like, a mere study wouldn't be enough, but also the money doesn't have to begin moving yet. If there were a committee that was commited to I/P divestment action on some longer timeline, that would be a Yes. (and please correct me @mattyb!)

@Panfilo so, that would be a study with an action pre-detetmined as the outcome? For example, the UC Riverside study very clearly does not commit to an action.

@RussellBatemanBuckley I think I personally could use more clarity from earlier convos, but I want to be patient since Matty is also frustrated with all the wordiness.