In recent years, members of the Brown community have argued vehemently both for and against student-led proposals to divest the University’s endowment from companies described as facilitating “the Israeli occupation of Palestinian Territory.” Central to considering these requests has been a longstanding approach in place at Brown, through which any member of our community can submit a proposal for divestment for examination by a representative committee of faculty, staff, students and alumni selected by their respective governing bodies.
This tradition dates to Dec. 5, 1978, when the Brown faculty recommended this inclusive process and approved the charge for what was established as the Advisory Committee on Corporate Responsibility in Investment Policies, or ACCRIP. While the committee and its charge have evolved over decades, as many university structures for shared governance naturally do, the principles that underpin the approach ultimately approved by faculty vote in 1979 remain alive and well nearly a half century later.
Unfortunately, there is an emerging narrative that questions the persistence of the traditions and core principles of this committee, which stems from groups who are misinformed about the history of ACCRIP’s transition in 2020 to the Advisory Committee on University Resources Management, or ACURM. Some who disagree with the Corporation of Brown University’s decision to accept ACURM’s recommendation not to divest have questioned or mischaracterized the founding principles that prompted the ACCRIP-to-ACURM transition. The proliferation of misinformation has the unfortunate effect of questioning the integrity of a process that has stood across generations as part of a shared governance model for tackling issues of concern for the Brown community.
Despite assertions from some who continue to advocate for divestment, ACURM’s formation was entirely unrelated to ACCRIP’s consideration of a student-led divestment proposal in 2019 and 2020. In fact, the committee’s transition was unrelated to any specific divestment proposal — rather, it was a direct response to concerns about the narrow charge of ACCRIP.
A full understanding of the history of ACURM and its predecessor committee is important for preserving the long-established respect that the Brown community has maintained for the committee’s important role. To mischaracterize this history does a disservice to the faculty, staff, students and alumni who for generations have invested considerable time to help the Brown community navigate challenging and sometimes divisive issues related to ethical and responsible use of the University’s financial resources.
Upon the recommendation of a faculty committee, ACCRIP’s charge as established in 1978 was to consider issues of ethical and moral responsibility specifically in the University’s investment policies. Recommendations from the committee over the years proposed actions on issues including investment in coal companies, business activities supporting the Sudanese government and investment in tobacco companies. Other issues ACCRIP considered included creating a social choice fund and establishing a climate investment task force. Not all actions pertained to divestment, but the charge concerned investment policies.
In 2019-20, a working group led by the University’s Faculty Executive Committee led a process to develop a charge that would expand ACCRIP’s mandate such that the president and members of the community could bring pressing issues concerning core University values without being limited solely to matters of investment policy. The purpose was to make the committee’s charge more robust, allowing it to consider moral and ethical issues across a broad range of University financial commitments.
The faculty-led committee that guided the process to develop ACURM’s revised charge included faculty, staff and undergraduate and graduate students. All Brown community members had the opportunity to provide input on the proposed new charge over a year-long process. After community input and revisions, the University faculty at their May 2020 meeting approved a motion to amend the Faculty Rules and Regulations, effective July 1, 2020, creating ACURM as a successor committee to ACCRIP. As noted in the rationale that accompanied the motion at the time of the vote: “ACURM has a deliberately broader charge than ACCRIP and will advise the President on how the University manages the investment and expenditure of its financial resources to ensure ethical and moral conduct in a manner consistent with the University’s mission and values.”
In other words, ACURM’s focus is no longer limited exclusively to matters of investment policy and is now responsible for considering issues related to social responsibility with respect to business practices and policies, labor issues, gift acceptance and naming policies and other matters related to the investment and expenditure of University financial resources. ACURM was established by a vote of the faculty for the express purpose of broadening ACCRIP’s charge and expanding its mandate to encompass business and investment operations.
Even with that expanded charge, the core principles that inform ACURM’s approach remain unchanged, including the two-pronged test used to evaluate divestment proposals. A key clause in the ACURM charge today specifies that the committee may recommend divestiture “when such actions will likely have a positive impact toward correcting the specified social harm.” That language was not new in 2020. It comes directly from the 1978 faculty committee report whose author, the late Professor of History William G. McLoughlin, wrote that ACCRIP may recommend divestiture when that action “will likely have a positive impact toward correcting the specified social harm."
Similarly, the factors the committee must balance in making divestment recommendations remain the same since the 1978 faculty report: the gravity of the social harm, the potential effectiveness of various means of influencing relevant policy or conduct, the need to maintain a sound financial policy and the consistency of proposed recommendations with the maintenance of an environment conducive to teaching and scholarly inquiry.
During the 2020 revision, the definition of social harm in the committee charge did change from “the harmful impact that the activities of a company or corporation have on consumers, employees, or other persons, or on the human or natural environment” (ACCRIP) to “the harmful impact that the investment or expenditure of University financial resources may have on the University community, consumers, employees, or other persons, or on the human or natural environment” (ACURM). This change reflected the broadened responsibility of ACURM to consider a range of issues related to social responsibility when the University expends or invests resources, compared to ACCRIP, which was narrowly restricted to considering issues of investment policy.
While the process to consider the student-led divestment proposal is now complete, Brown Chancellor Brian Moynihan and President Christina Paxson noted this month that ACURM raised key questions in its analysis — including how high the bar for divestment should be set, particularly given Brown’s minimal exposure to direct financial investments. As we find opportunities to consider important questions like these related to Brown’s business and investment operations, it’s important that we do so grounded in facts.
Russell Carey is the University’s Executive Vice President for Planning and Policy and Interim Vice President for Campus Life. He can be reached at russell_carey@brown.edu. Please send responses to this op-ed to letters@browndailyherald.com and other op-eds to opinions@browndailyherald.com.
