Pro-Palestinian Divestment Movement Sparks Controversy on US Campuses

College campuses across the US have been disrupted by pro-Palestinian protests this month, with demands for universities to divest from Israel in some form being a common theme at each institution. While the specific requests vary between schools, most demonstrations call on colleges and universities to sell investments linked to Israel.
However, many academic institutions are hesitant to follow through due to complications involved in untangling their financial interests with Israeli companies. Some defenders of Israel also argue that calls for divestment could be antisemitic as the Jewish state is both democratic and historically oppressed. Students from campuses like Cornell, Yale and Columbia are protesting their universities’ investment decisions concerning weapons manufacturers too.
Columbia University Apartheid Divest has been at the forefront of protests calling for its $13.6bn endowment to be withdrawn entirely from any company with ties to Israel. This includes tech giants like Microsoft, Amazon and Alphabet – firms whose involvement in business relationships is wide-ranging, ranging anywhere from computer technologies used by Israeli companies or products being exported to the region for commercial use purposes alone.
At other institutions such as Cornell University and Yale University, students are requesting their universities stop investing funds into weapons manufacturers altogether. However, some schools have refused to take a political stance on this matter due to various reasons – one of which is that it would impinge upon academic freedom or limit the free flow of ideas among its community members in light of such proposals’ potentially contentious nature (in other words: these universities fear for their own reputation).
Pro-Palestinian protestors say divestment sends an important message about disapproval regarding Israel’s conduct during recent military action against Gaza. While demonstrators have been vocal across the country, many colleges and universities are still hesitant to follow through with calls from protesters for financial restructuring on their grounds or institutions in other forms; such moves can create undesired implications if they go wrong (for example: potential legal issues arising out of any unintended consequences).
Some schools, like the University of Michigan, have stated that it does not directly invest funds into Israeli companies. However, protesting students across campuses nationwide claim their universities are being less than transparent about financial ties to Israel – a matter which is currently under review by some academic institutions such as Columbia and Brown Universities (the latter’s president has agreed in principle to hear divestment proposals provided that the protesters abandon protests they deem obstructionist).
University administrators at other campuses, including those from Portland State University and the University of California system have said that their institutions would not follow through with calls for divestment due to concerns over academic freedom or potential legal implications. However, some universities like Brown are willing to hear out protesters’ demands as long as protests remain peaceful – a stance which is being welcomed by students who feel they deserve more attention from the university administration on this matter given how sensitive it has become for all involved parties in recent weeks.
In 1980s, Columbia University divested its stock holdings of companies doing business with South Africa due to apartheid policies – a move that was followed up by other colleges and universities across America at the time (South African apartheid ended during the early ’90s). However, university investments are much more complicated nowadays given how globalised economies have become since then.
Nicholas Dirks, former chancellor of University of California Berkeley, told CNN that it would be almost impossible for universities to fully divest from companies with ties to Israel due in large part owing primarily due its complex interwoven links on US political and trade relationships (a situation which could also impact major American tech firms like Google’s parent company Alphabet or Microsoft).
CNN’s Ramishah Maruf, Clare Duffy and Nicole Goodkind contributed reporting.