Last week's Observer led with a two-page spread ("Brown and Blue Go Green," Sept. 29) patting Tufts on the back for all of the sustainable initiatives it is making in plain sight for all of us to see and feel good about.
For shining some light on the issue of sustainability, the author should be applauded; however, her article is just the latest illustrative example of a massive gap in our discourse on these matters. For all the money Tufts may be spending -- or saving -- in the name of the environment, we are once again ignoring a crucial issue: Is the university using our endowment responsibly, and if so, why the embarrassing lack of transparency?
Despite the interest our community has shown in shining a light on the university's endowment over the past two years, very little concrete progress has been made. Last year, the administration permitted the creation of the Advisory Committee on Shareholder Responsibility (ACSR), a committee intended to be representative of the Tufts community -- faculty, undergraduate students, graduate students, administrators and alumni -- to provide representative input into the proxy voting process.
Despite the wave of optimism this development originally generated, a year later, we find ourselves with little true progress having been made. The ACSR has been reduced from its ten original members from the Tufts community, including alumni, faculty and graduate students, to just three undergraduates lacking the support they need. These three remaining members have been forced to sign nondisclosure agreements, meaning that the rest of us are in the dark about decision-making and there is essentially no democratic process. Nobody knows if the ACSR's input is being taken seriously (if it's taken into account at all) or if it is truly representing the values of our university.
We can't expect change overnight, and we know a group of students can't run an investment portfolio as well as professionals can. But we also believe there's a middle ground we must find. We acknowledge that we can't shine a light on many of Tufts' financial activities purely due to the nature of the investments themselves -- mutual funds, for example, which the investors themselves often cannot view.
Furthermore, we should understand that there are abstract but important issues at stake in how one chooses to view the situation. While some students may be crying out for more transparency and oversight into the administration's finances, others may be skeptical of delving into the investment activities of an endowment they don't see as intrinsically theirs.
But despite these questions, and the murky nature of figuring out just how Tufts is investing the endowment behind tightly closed doors, there is a larger, clearer picture in front of us. The Responsible Endowment Coalition, a nonprofit advocacy group devoted to integrating universities' positive values with their investment practices, gave Tufts an "F" in investment transparency last year.
Many other schools -- including Columbia, Swarthmore, Williams and the University of Pennsylvania -- now have stronger oversight mechanisms to allow community access to, and in some cases, participation in, the investment decision-making and proxy voting process.
These successes, however, were only achieved after student movements raised awareness, started a dialogue and pushed hard on their administrations.
Undoubtedly, our financial system, as well as entire financial practices such as investment banking, is under siege right now, and many may see the maximization of profits in the "rainy days" ahead to be our primary goal.
But even President Bacow's e-mail on Monday, which warned that the current financial storm will undoubtedly affect our investment portfolio, financial aid and major projects, was nevertheless upbeat about the "cushion" of reserves we still possess following the most successful year of fundraising in Tufts history.
Now is not the time for us to throw up our hands; the economy may be faltering, but institutional investors such as Tufts still play a major role in the global economy, and how our endowment is invested can have an enormous impact on environmental sustainability, human rights, and the implementation of other ethical business practices. What we invest in, and how Tufts University uses its right as a shareholder to cast its proxy vote, can signal an implicit endorsement or rejection of whatever the university as a whole chooses to endorse or reject. It is a power we must use wisely and take seriously.
For all of these reasons, I'm proud to announce our newest student movement, Students at Tufts for Investment Responsibility (STIR). Keep your ears open in the coming days and weeks to hear more about STIR publicizing this issue; based on the administration's attitude, a protracted, forceful, campus-wide push may be the only way to convince the administration to take our concerns seriously. If you would like to get involved, I hope you will contact me to learn more about this issue and what each of us can do to resolve it.
For long enough, Tufts has been silent, dismissive and evasive while other schools have opened up their investment portfolios and treated the views of their communities with the respect and importance they deserve. President Bacow has stated that he does not want to "engage in social engineering through the endowment," but our own university has taught us better than that. Let us tell Tufts to put her money where her mouth is, because being a shareholder isn't just about maximizing profits, it's about wielding your influence in a smart and responsible way. Martin Bourqui is a senior majoring in English and political science.
--
Martin Bourqui is a senior majoring in English and political science.
