Clark’s emphatic rejection of BDS followed some confusion caused by spurious student reporting which suggested that the university had taken steps toward adopting BDS and had even met with pro-BDS parties to discuss doing so.
By Dion J. Pierre, The Algemeiner
Clark University in Massachusetts has said it has no plans to adopt the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.
“Our endowment is not intended to be used as an instrument to express views on social or political issues,” university president David Fithian said in a statement earlier this month.
“Neither is it a means for exercising social power or advancing specific interests. Therefore, the university — under the Board of Trustees’ direction — will not consider divestment as a strategy for addressing world events.”
On the question of “conforming to directives of” the BDS movement, Fithian continued, the university “does not intend to change current institutional policies or procedures. Nor will we allow the adoption of measures within any unit or function that are discriminatory and/or force involuntary adoption of one particular point of view over others.”
The statement described such measures as “inconsistent with our values as a university and would conflict with university policy,” adding that they would also “threaten academic freedom, the respectful free expression of ideas and views, and the principles of inclusion and belonging that are central to our community.”
Clark’s emphatic rejection of BDS followed some confusion caused by spurious student reporting which suggested that the university had taken steps toward adopting BDS and had even met with pro-BDS parties to discuss doing so.
Last month, a student newspaper at the school, The Scarlet, reported erroneously that the student government of the Clark Undergraduate Student Council (CUSC) was seeking to push student clubs into adhering to BDS, creating, for example, a vendor list to help groups use alternatives to Amazon — which maintains investments in Israel — for purchases.
CUSC has reportedly been encouraging student organizations to use this list and regularly check the BDS movement’s website to ensure “compliance.”
The Scarlet also reported that CUSC has worked with the university’s Student Leadership and Programming to use tax-exempt vendors for their supplies such as Walmart, Target, and Party City, all of which comply with BDS.
However, a university spokesperson told The Algemeiner that the report was categorically false and shared with The Algemeiner‘s Campus Bureau documents showing nearly $10,000 in Amazon purchases made by campus clubs during the first two-thirds of the academic year alone.
The Scarlet also said that the university’s dining vendor, Harvest Table, was persuaded to purchase BDS-approved products “from local vendors and providers to better comply with the [BDS] movement.”
Such charges, in addition to not being true, were harmful, Clark University explained to The Algemeiner.
“Providing kosher meals for our Jewish students is extremely important and something the university will never compromise,” the spokesperson said, adding that no recent vendor changes have anything to do with BDS and will not in “any way negatively affect the provision of kosher options for our students.”
Since then, the student paper issued a recantation, which said in part:
“The article … erroneously reported that ‘as of November 15, no purchases have been made through Amazon using CUSC’s club budget.’ As of November 15, 36 clubs have made 68 purchases through Amazon totaling $9,430.97 using CUSC’s club budget. Lastly, it was reported that Harvest Table replaced items from companies flagged by BDS and purchases from local vendors to better comply with BDS. This is not true.”
The paper also noted that an account of a meeting between Fithian and pro-BDS members of student government to “begin charting a path toward divestment” was fiction, explaining that the university “did not indicate in those conversations any specific intentions or action that would be taken.”
Clark University is one of many schools that has rejected the BDS movement, which seeks to isolate Israel from the international community as a step toward its eventual elimination.
Trinity College in Connecticut did so last month, explaining that “the long-term and practical challenges of divesting or utilizing the endowment to exert political influence would create too much risk for the institution and potentially compromise its ability to carry out its primary educational mission.”
In September, Chapman University trustee Jim Burra cited a “fiduciary responsibility” to future students and faculty which rules out divestment as a possibility, adding that “it is important that we make financial decisions based on risk and return.”
The prior month, the University of Minnesota pointed to the same reason while touching on the extent to which the Israeli-Palestinian conflict polarizes its campus community.
However, the university did adopt a new policy for its investments, a so-called “position of neutrality” which, it says, will be a guardrail protecting university business from the caprices of political opinion.
Several weeks earlier, Oberlin College’s Board of Trustees voted against divestment after reviewing a proposal submitted by “Students for a Free Palestine,” a spin-off of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), which has been linked to Islamist terrorist organizations.
Colleges and universities will lose tens of billions of dollars collectively from their endowments if they capitulate to demands to divest from Israel , according to a report published in September by JLens, a Jewish investor network that is part of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).
Titled “The Impact of Israel Divestment on Equity Portfolios: Forecasting BDS’s Financial Toll on University Endowments,” the report presented the potential financial impact of universities adopting the BDS movement, which is widely condemned for being antisemitic.
The losses estimated by JLens are cataclysmic. Adopting BDS, it said, would incinerate $33.21 billion of future returns for the 100 largest university endowments over the next 10 years, with Harvard University losing $2.5 billion and the University of Texas losing $2.2 billion.
Other schools would forfeit over $1 billion, including the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, and Princeton University. For others, such as the University of Michigan and Dartmouth College, the damages would total in the hundreds of millions.