Letter to the editor: Dec. 12, 2008

U. needs committee to investigate investments

Regarding ‘Outrage, not ethics, spurs U. divestment' (Friday, Dec. 5, 2008):

I thought the writer did an excellent job of highlighting the weaknesses of Princeton University's current policy on investment-driven social responsibility issues.

While only my comments critical of the University were quoted in the article, it deserves mentioning that I think a nuanced approach is necessary when investors consider taking ethically motivated action. As I wrote in my e-mail to the writer, I do not think that investors should necessarily push companies to stop doing business in a country with a corrupt, abusive or ineffective government. In some cases, international companies can do a lot of good by operating in such countries. I think it is up to the company and its investors to make the decision to go into or stay in such an environment and to monitor the company's operations.

In addition, I would like to be clear on how transparent I believe the University needs to be in this whole process.

In all communications with the article's author, I never recommended Princeton make its holdings more transparent - in fact, I praised the level of transparency exhibited by Princeton in its decision to divest from Sudan.

What I do believe is that, similar to Harvard and Yale, Princeton should deliberate in a thoughtful and timely manner on ethical investment issues through a permanent committee meeting regularly throughout each academic year whose members sign confidentiality agreements and are given need-to-know access to information about the University's investments. The committee could engage in open yet non-investment-specific dialogue with the University community to be representative and stimulate debate and learning on the issues. The committee will need its own resources, including support from a full-time staff member, in part so that Princeton University Investment Company president Andrew Golden's team would not again have to spend so "many, many hours" on information requests, which hours Golden did not consider the "best use of" of PRINCO's time when the Zimbabwe issue recently arose.

Jonathan Macey of Yale said it well when he categorized Princeton's policy as a "practical" one, not an "ethical" one. Golden pointed out that the University is ill-equipped to handle implementation of the policy, despite how infrequently that occurs. It is time for change. I hope our institution, which preaches public service and prides itself on excellence, has the humility to recognize this and the courage to take action.