The Advisory Committee on Investment Responsibility (ACIR) released a statement Dec. 10 recommending that the University not divest from companies with ties to Israel, in response to Duke Divestment Coalition’s divestment proposal.
Over the past year, student movements on college campuses across the country have called for their respective universities to divest from their holdings in Israel. However, few colleges have actually made the move — including Duke, which has rejected a number of proposals since at least 2003.
“The committee noted that there continues to be considerable evidence of strongly held views on both sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and that this remains a divisive and polarizing issue on campus,” the statement read. “Hence the benchmark of ‘broad and deep agreement’ has not been met in this case.”
The Chronicle broke down some of the biggest questions surrounding ACIR’s response, including what it says and why it matters.
What is ACIR?
ACIR — composed of five faculty members, four administrators, two undergraduate students, two graduate students, one alumnus and one trustee — serves as the advisory body to the University’s president in making recommendations about investment activity to the Board of Trustees. The board then makes recommendations to DUMAC, the investment management firm that oversees Duke's endowment.
What does the divestment proposal entail?
The 56-page proposal calls on Duke to disclose and divest from its holdings in Israel, providing short- and long-term actions to achieve that goal. Short-term actions include disclosing and divesting University-wide assets, while long-term actions include revising and updating Duke’s investment guideline policies.
The proposal is split into seven main sections, with the first two alleging the historical and present-day “human rights violations and apartheid conditions” in the Palestinian territories and the third addressing “ethical and fiduciary responsibilities” of the University. The fourth, fifth and sixth sections culminate in the organization’s proposal to ACIR.
DDC contends that since ACIR is tasked with aligning Duke’s investments with its institutional values, maintaining financial ties to companies allegedly involved in these actions contradicts the University's commitment to social responsibility and ethical investment practices.
What are Duke’s partnerships and financial ties with Israel?
In a May 2024 article, The Chronicle found that Duke holds approximately $1.38 million in investments through DUMAC in companies with operations in or partnerships connected to Israel or targeted by the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.
The amount comprises about 4.26% of the University’s total holdings reported in the most recent U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing outlining Quarter 2 of fiscal year 2023.
Additionally, between June 2020 and February 2024, the University reported receiving a $274,543 restricted contract from a non-governmental Israeli source. In total, Duke received $161 million in gifts and contracts from foreign governments during this period, meaning Israeli contracts accounted for 0.17% of that total.
What else does ACIR’s response say?
In its response to the divestment proposal, ACIR cited the decisions of former Duke presidents who have faced calls for the University to divest from Israel.
The committee first referred to President Emerita Nannerl Keohane who, in 2003, stated that although members of the Duke community are entitled to “express their opposition to the policies of the government of Israel … divestment is not the right response.”
She referred to the move as “too blunt an instrument to use in a situation where there are good arguments to be made about responsibility and complicity on both sides of this conflict,” further adding that in the case of divestment from South Africa “there was an extraordinary level of moral clarity about questions of responsibility.”
President Emeritus Richard Brodhead reaffirmed this stance in September 2004, noting that divestment from Israeli companies “would be used only as a last resort where there was very significant, enduring consensus within this country.”
ACIR also made note of a previous attempt by DDC to submit an anonymous proposal to the committee in August. Since DDC is not a recognized Duke group — and ACIR is only able to consider submissions from members of the Duke community — DDC resubmitted its proposal Nov. 1, with signatures from Duke Diya, Duke Students for Justice in Palestine, Duke Muslim Students Association and later the Duke Asian Students Association.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Sign up for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.
On Dec. 11, President Price released a response to the ACIR recommendation, stating that “[he] acknowledge[s] and concur[s] with ACIR’s decision not to request that the president and Board of Trustees consider divestment from companies with ties to Israel.”
Aviv Stabinsky is a Trinity first-year and a staff reporter for the news department.