PETITION TO THE BROWN UNIVERSITY CORPORATION AGAINST DIVESTMENT FROM ISRAEL

To the Members of the Corporation of Brown University and President Paxson:

We have watched the climate on the Brown campus unravel since October 7, 2023. Jewish students have endured harassment, threats, and isolation. The Hillel Rabbi and staff faced death threats. Anti-Israel protests overtook the Main Green.

The upcoming Corporation vote on a petition to divest from Israel is yet another chapter in this unrest. Brown University has been overrun by irrational hatred, turbulence, and discrimination against its Jewish population for too long.  

We ask that you vote against the Brown Divest Coalition’s petition to divest from ten companies that do business with Israel for the following reasons:  

1. Divestment threatens Brown’s institutional neutrality. President Paxson has repeatedly emphasized the significance of Brown’s institutional neutrality, and has previously said that the University will not entertain a divestment resolution. In the current climate, we believe that divestment would be tantamount to taking a position in an international war between a foreign country (Israel) and a U.S. designated terrorist group (Hamas). It is not the role of the Corporation or the University to make such politicized, divisive statements.
2. Divestment goes against Rhode Island state law and other anti-BDS laws around the country. Rhode Island passed the Anti-Discrimination in State Contracts Act in 2016. This prevents the state of Rhode Island from doing business with an entity that engages in Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (“BDS”). If Brown approves the divestment petition, it will place at risk all current and future contracts with the state of Rhode Island.
3. Divestment potentially violates other states’ laws. Twenty four state attorneys general have warned Brown of potential legal action and financial penalties if the University votes to divest. (Bloomberg) In the letter, they write: “If adopted, the Brown Divest Now proposal will have immediate and profound legal consequences for Brown, its employees, and its student body because it may trigger the application of laws in nearly three-fourths of States prohibiting States and their instrumentalities from contracting with, investing in, or otherwise doing business with entities that discriminate against Israel, Israelis, or those who do business with either.” Brown faces the potential of being bogged down in costly litigation for years against a multitude of states based on their own anti-BDS legislation, at the expense of its students and faculty. Current and future grants and research relationships that flow through these 24 states could be lost. The sale of the Choices curriculum could be compromised. Brown’s reputation would be in tatters.  
4. Divestment fails to accomplish the stated goals of the BDC petition. Brown has no direct investments in any of the ten companies on the petition’s list. There is no direct causal link between Brown’s investments and any possible social harms claimed by the Brown Divest Coalition. Any “indirect” investments are so miniscule as to have no quantifiable impact. A “yes” vote would be nothing more than a symbolic statement. As such, it would violate both the letter of ACURM’s charge and the Corporation’s fiduciary obligations as the stewards of Brown’s finances. (See Q&A published with Brown’s Chief Investment Officer, Jane Dietz)
5. The divestment motion is discriminatory. The outrage directed against Israel is selective. There are numerous conflicts, and actual genocides, around the globe. The BDS movement and current divestment proposal represent a targeted fixation on one country: Israel. By extension, they target Israeli students, faculty, and the majority of Jewish students who feel a deep connection to Israel as a central tenet of their religious identity. Endorsement of the petition would be tantamount to institutional approval of such discrimination. Joseph Edelman, the Brown trustee who resigned from the Corporation, has written, “How can Brown lend credence to these antisemitic voices, who notably began protesting in support of violence against Jews before Israel had even responded to the Oct. 7 attack? It’s as if the Brown board has agreed to vote on whether Israel has a right to defend itself, whether Israel has a right to exist, and even whether Jews have a right to exist.” 
6. While divestment fails to accomplish any concrete goals of BDC, it actively creates real social harms. The social harms engendered by divestment far outweigh the symbolic, ineffective statement divestment would make. Passing this resolution would be a loud and clear statement to Jewish students, alumni, faculty, staff, and future applicants that Brown is no longer a safe place to be Jewish. Current students and faculty will be further marginalized, isolated, and incentivized to leave for friendlier climes. Eight in ten Jewish Americans identify as Zionists and say that caring about Israel is an essential part of what being Jewish means to them. 
7. Many of the companies on the divestment list create important products.  Some contribute to our own country’s self defense. Some contribute to Ukraine’s defense against Russian invasion. Companies like G.E. are engaged in work to reduce carbon emissions. Most relevant, BDS harms Palestinians on the ground who suffer from lost employment and income. BDS is entirely counterintuitive to a peace process that will require stronger economic ties between Israelis and Palestinians.  
8. Divestment would reward the students and employees who have repeatedly broken Brown’s Code of Conduct and policies. The encampment, sit-ins, and protests infringed on the ability of all students to use common spaces free from disruption. Jewish students were called “Zionist pigs” for daring to walk on the Main Green while being Jewish. They were threatened with Intifada. Updating policies and creating a mere paper compliance program does not suffice to meet Department of Education standards and expectations. Enforcement is key. The DOE’s Office of Civil Rights has already entered into a settlement agreement with Brown to remedy its policy and procedural deficiencies that resulted in violations to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In supporting this group of policy violators with a meaningless divestment vote, Brown would be incentivizing further student misconduct and harassment of Jews on campus before it has even completed its obligations under its agreement with the DOE. The Corporation would be rewarding flagrant violations of its Code and harassment of a segment of its population. Brown would be inviting the DOE to further sanction the University.

Brown should follow the lead of peer institutions that have decided not to divest. Trustees and administrators of multiple universities and colleges have said that they will not divest from Israel: Columbia University​; Cornell University​; University of Michigan​; Williams College​, Amherst College​, Occidental College​, UCLA​, University of Minnesota. Yale University trustees also declined to divest from military weapons manufacturing. They chose the path of institutional neutrality and intellectual discourse, as we now ask you to do.

With gratitude for your consideration, we remain ever true to Brown.

The undersigned….