Trustees advise dissociation committee to ‘quickly dispose’ of some petitions, avoid ‘intensifying division’

Princeton University’s Board of Trustees is now advising the Council of the Princeton University Community’s Resources Committee to “quickly dispose of petitions” when the potential for consensus is low, and to “avoid becoming a tool for intensifying division,” according to a public statement released by the board on Wednesday. The Resources Committee is a group of faculty, students, and staff that considers proposals for dissociation. 

“If dissociation submissions clearly fail the consensus criterion, there is no need to thoroughly examine whether other criteria are met, to burden disputants with establishing a lack of consensus, or to otherwise extend consideration of the petition,” the statement read.  

Dissociation refers to severing financial relationships with an entity, including refraining from soliciting or accepting gifts or grants and purchasing products from the entity. 

The statement follows a year of campus discourse surrounding dissociation from Israel. In 2025, a proposal for Princeton to “divest its endowment of entities that enable or facilitate human rights violations or violations of international law as part of Israel’s illegal occupations, apartheid practices, and plausible acts of genocide” was rejected by the Resources Committee following a lengthy community input process that collected 2,300 distinct responses. 

Student activists and politicians have also pushed for the University to dissociate from fossil fuel companies. In May, the Resources Committee declined to refer a proposal from Sunrise Princeton to divest from PetroTiger to the Board of Trustees. One week later, the Princeton University Investment Company walked back its divestment from publicly traded oil and gas companies. 

The University’s Board of Trustees also reiterated its “strong presumption against dissociation” in the statement and clarified language around “potential for community consensus” to mean a “near unanimity of agreement.”  

In response to a question regarding what consensus surrounding a dissociation petition may be, University spokesperson Michael Hotchkiss wrote “The statement speaks for itself.”

Some community members argued that the new statement represented an unreasonably strict interpretation of “consensus” that would prevent action toward dissociation. 

“‘Near unanimity’ of agreement on any given issue is an almost impossible standard to achieve and precludes action to dissociate from companies — like fossil fuels — even when the vast majority of campus agrees and when the enormous, harmful impact of such companies is overwhelmingly apparent,” organizer and co-coordinators of Sunrise Princeton Isaac Barsoum ’28, Raf Basas ’28, and Zach Goldberg ’28 wrote in a joint statement to the ‘Prince.’ 

Barsoum is an associate Opinion editor for The Daily Princetonian. Basas is an assistant Opinion editor for the ‘Prince.’

Undergraduate Student Government (USG) President Quentin Colón Roosevelt ’27 “strongly oppose[d]” the new guidance. 

“This new guidance will prevent deliberation on the most important issues of our time and prevent Princeton from fulfilling its mission to serve humanity,” Colón Roosevelt wrote in a statement to the ‘Prince.’ 

“This statement spelling out the limits of discussion removes any illusion that the University cares about the input and activism of its students, faculty, staff, and alumni. It is an intentional crushing of a process for thoughtful dialogue on campus about complex issues,” Lynne Archibald ’87 and H. Reynolds Martinez ’22, organizers of Divest Princeton, wrote to the ‘Prince’ in a statement. 

“As the Committee considers any new dissociation petitions, please be reminded of the Board’s ‘strong presumption against the University taking a political position or playing an active role with respect to external issues of a political, social, or moral character,’” the Board of Trustee’s statement read. 

The Resources Committee’s guidelines for investment decisions relating to issues of “social responsibility” include sustained campus interest, fundamental University values, and potential for community consensus. The Board of Trustees, however, is not bound by any recommendations the Resources Committee makes and retains final decision-making authority on dissociation decisions. 

Resources Committee chair and sociology professor Patrick Sharkey declined to comment on the statement, citing that the Committee had not met to discuss it. Multiple other Committee members declined to comment or did not respond to requests for comment.

The statement follows a Board of Trustees meeting held last week and the first CPUC meeting of the academic year on Monday. 

In a 2025 Opinion piece in the ‘Prince’ announcing the Resources Committee’s decision to not pursue dissociation from Israel, former Resources Committee Chair John Groves wrote that the Committee did not use “counting methods” such as polls, petitions, or messages to evaluate the degree of community consensus. The Trustees suggested that the committee could continue to “periodically remind the community” of the presumption against dissociation, referring to Groves’ opinion.

When asked about the timing of the statement, which was released less than 48 hours after the CPUC meeting on Monday, Hotchkiss wrote to the ‘Prince’ that the statement was “shared with the Resources Committee in a manner consistent with standard practice.” 

“The statement addresses a matter of ongoing interest to the University community and members of the CPUC will have continuing opportunities to address it at future meetings,” Hotchkiss wrote.  

The next CPUC meeting will be on Nov. 9. 

Sena Chang is the associate News editor for the ‘Prince’ leading investigations. She is from Japan and South Korea, and she often covers local politics and student life. She can be reached at sena[at]dailyprincetonian.com.

Please send any corrections to corrections[at]dailyprincetonian.com.