RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrinceThe University performs no regular ethical review of its investments, Princeton University Investment Company (PRINCO) president Andrew Golden said after an investigation by campus radio station WPRB revealed that the University may have investment ties to Zimbabwe.
The endowment currently ...
(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
Israel is starving and blockading all of Gaza.
Princeton certainly can, and should, boycott all products from Israel. Divestment from Israel is the very least we can do.
Stay neutral.
I'm pleased to hear that the university does not artificially restrict the scope of its endowment investments according to some 'ethical' criterion.
What makes Zimbabwe so unsexy compared to Darfur is that in 1965 the British Colonial Office tried to give the colony of Rhodesia to its black majority. But its white population declared independence and for 15 years resisted an international trade embargo, building a substantial manufacturing base. Finally, in 1979, Margaret Thatcher organized the handover of the country to Robert Mugabe.
The new President devoted the next decade to slaughtering his tribal enemies, largely leaving the white farmers alone to feed the country. In 2000, however, Mugabe began to reward his supporters by telling them to drive out the white minority and steal their land. Not surprisingly, his bully boys proved to be worthless farmers and the country has teetered on the brink of starvation ever since. Mugabe's government has responded to the shortages it created by printing money, driving the annual inflation rate up to 165,000% in April 2008.
The racial taboos about criticizing blacks don't apply as much to the Sudanese Arabs. In the American politician's mind, they're just white people, more or less. But some of them are misled by anti-Semitism or Islamofascism or anti-Americanism, just like the Germans were misled by Nazism, So, it's okay to kill them. (Indeed, for neoconservative Darfur enthusiasts, killing Arabs is not a bug, it’s a feature.)
But killing Mugabe's goons? They're black. And they beat up white farmers. Oh, man, that's a whole different kettle of fish—lots of domestic political implications that nobody wants to touch. So few white American politicians are excited about getting involved on the side of whites being victimized by blacks. There's no domestic political profit in that!
To a white American politician like McCain, Zimbabwe is the Jena Six brouhaha writ large. As you may recall, the six star football players on the Jena H.S. team had been using their privileged position as local sports heroes to run amok for years, beating up people. But their coaches and fans kept getting them out of trouble so they could continue to star on the Jena H.S. football team.
Finally, the Six went too far when they kept stomping a single youth after he was already unconscious on the ground.
So, just like in Zimbabwe, you had a gang of black thugs outnumbering and beating up a white person. What was the upshot? Why Rev. Jesse and Rev. Al and all the media came to town and denounced the white people of Jena for their horrible racism!
It was hilarious, but you can see why even a war-lover like McCain wouldn't want to get involved in such a directly analogous situation in Zimbabwe.
Wait, this entire article is because the University has invested TWO CENTS in Zimbabwe? Seriously?
Harvard recently announced a 22% drop in its endowment. WPRB is doing its part to make sure the PRINCO people are so busy with this silliness that we see an even steeper fall. Oh well, forget financial aid, as long as a few budding journalists can make a name for themselves...
11, I think you miss the point of the article. It has little to do with the $.02 that the University has invested in Zimbabwe (although I do find Zimbabwe's inflation both humorous and sad). Rather, the thrust of the article is that Princeton makes no ethical considerations of its investments before the advent of campus outrage. This puts the burden of ethical investing on students instead of PRINCO against the backdrop of little transparency. Peer institutions have dramatically different approaches.
To This is Silly, this seems like a relevant critique of PRINCO and its investment strategies. At the same time, it doesn't sound like those that manage the endowment are losing much sleep over this issue. To think that spending a little time with ethical concerns will have an impact on the performance of the endowment is far-fetched. Indeed, in the case of Yale's advisory committee at least 3/4 of the participants are non investment types, according to this article.
While this actually a pretty excellent article with interesting moral discussion of the implications(even if it is 2 cents); I'm a little disheartened to see that the Prince still can't break a story and relies on others news to make theirs. And who knew WPRB was doing investigative journalism? Go radio!
i exhibit no surprise that princeton cannot be bothered to govern its
investments by other than practical terms. the punyversity, historically
speaking, has never hesitated to form the most politely obscene ties with
not only well-established and morally reprehensible governments, but
also well-established and morally reprehensible corporations. the south
african divestment campaign succeeded only because their continued
investments lost them more money than they gained them. princeton
university, despite its wealth and historical status, has no moral
backbone.
It's two cents people. Get a life.