Divestment or lip service: What Sacramento State’s new policy actually means | Opinion

In recent weeks, protesters from across the nation have camped out on college campuses, demanding for divestment from Israel, as the country’s conflict with terrorist group Hamas has raged on. The war has taken more than 35,000 Palestinians and 1,400 Israeli lives.

The issue of divestment, or something resembling it, has gotten legs in California recently. Sacramento State became one of the first public universities in the state to reach a deal with pro-Palestinian protesters after their 10-day camp on the college campus.

Aligning with one of the protesters’ demands, the university created a new policy to ban “direct investments in corporations and funds that profit from genocide, ethnic cleansing, and activities that violate fundamental human rights.”

Tuesday, the University of California at Berkeley, after reaching a deal with protesters, said they won’t divest from Israel, but has promised to assess investments in weapons, mass incarceration, and surveillance industries.

Palestinian protesters both local and national have touted Sacramento State’s new policy as a win. And while UC Berkeley may not have divested, the university’s commitment to investigating its investment is progress.

But as these two situations signal what would be a movement toward greater acceptance of divestment efforts, not everyone in California leadership thinks it’s such a good idea.

While speaking about his revised $288 billion budget proposal, which is a column for another time, California Gov. Gavin Newsom said he was “against divestment.” Though Newsom didn’t get into much detail, his shot at schools such as Sacramento State does have some weight.

In the case of Sacramento State’s new policy, if you were to call it a win for the pro-Palestinian effort, you might need to look deeper into what it actually says.

Divestment fallacy

The policy outlines what Sacramento State has deemed wrong — profiting from genocide, ethnic cleansing, and activities that violate fundamental human rights. That’s the easy part. But here is a claim that I’ve got a problem with: The University Foundation of Sacramento State, keeper of its investments, “does not have any direct investment in these areas,” the university says even though it has yet to review “indirect” investments like mutual funds.

How can the university be so sure it has no problematic investments when it has yet to develop the strategy to review all investments? How many investments does the university have?

These are all questions the university is raising for itself by advancing this investment policy, but is nowhere near answering.

Transparency is the first step in socially responsible investment. The university’s investments are a complete mystery to the public. I reached out to Sacramento State to get a list of its investments over the last five years. So far, officials have not able to give me any information.

The university has to do more than just say that all of its investments are fine. Sacramento State has to show actual evidence of that. And so far, that hasn’t happened. Failing to back up a claim of being a socially responsible investor leaves the university in a sticky situation.

A can of worms

The protesters are not the problem here. They used their voice to advocate for change. Sacramento State President Luke Wood deserves credit for listening to all sides of this issue and finding a solution.

But the truth is that this new focus on socially responsible investing may never lead to a single divestment. And investment choices are a never-ending process for a university.

The university essentially traded a 10-day protest encampment for an open-ended commitment of socially responsible investing. CSU Sacramento has now obligated itself to identify what specific corporations and funds are to be avoided and why. There’s no other way to pass its own test.

As one of first universities in the country to implement an policy in the wake of ongoing student protests, surely Wood and Sacramento State know that the tension won’t be resolved long-term with vague promises that have no real-world meaning.

The university’s first steps related to this new investment promise have happened with no transparency. It feels like Sacramento State is walking blind down a path with no direction or end in sight.