[https://web.archive.org/web/20250530185213/https://www.guelphtoday.com/local-news/divestment-request-over-israel-palestine-conflict-rejected-by-u-of-g-10737511](Archive Link)
The University of Guelph will not be divesting from five companies an activist group claims are unethical and involved in weapons manufacturing related to the conflict in Israel and Palestine.
The concern was submitted by UoG for Palestine in March 2024, requesting the university freeze and divest its investments in five companies, including BAE Systems and Honeywell, who they say are arms manufacturers that create parts for fighter jets “that are used to drop bombs on Gaza.”
Siemens, AXA and TEVA were also listed as “troubling, unethical, and do not align with the university’s responsibility for ethical and responsible investment.”
The university has a total of around $4.7 million invested between these five companies, amounting to just 1.17 per cent of its total endowment equity holdings.
After the concerns were submitted, an anonymous ad hoc committee was created specifically to conduct a review of the request.
“It was a challenging and difficult job,” said board chair Nancy Brown Andison during the meeting. “They had a large number of meetings, undertook public consultations, reviewed many documents, and we sincerely appreciate all the work they put into this.”
A year later, the committee recommended the university not proceed with divestment as they claim the request did not meet the required criteria.
The report, which was also supported by the finance committee, was presented to the Board of Governors during a special meeting Friday morning.
The board passed the motion (which endorsed the decision to reject the request), with 15 in favour, two against and one abstaining.
The decision comes shortly after the university announced it had fully divested from fossil fuels after ongoing pressure from a student group, Fossil Free Guelph.
The rejection for divestment in this case was based on three criteria, including fiduciary duty, social injury and government action.
Vice-chair Deb Stark said after seeking financial advice and consulting with the community, it was determined divestment “would introduce significant and disproportionate cost and risk to the university’s portfolio.”
“Any viable divestment strategy would require allocating large sums to address relatively small investments of concern,” she said.
Stark also added the committee found no direct casual link between the activities of the companies, or the university’s investments in them, to social injury, though they "acknowledged the deep suffering of individuals both in Palestine and Israel.”
Their decision was also contingent on the fact that the Canadian government has not taken any “material actions” against the five companies.
“I want to stress that the committee’s recommendations do not constitute and should not be interpreted as a statement about the broader and social political issues raised,” Stark said.
After the report was presented, three members of UoG for Palestine shared their thoughts on the report and encouraged the motion to be rejected or tabled, including a recent grad, a current student and a faculty member.
One member noted the decision will have a direct impact on community members who have family in Palestine.
Another, professor Renee Sylvain, suggested the report did not have enough evidence to back up its claims, and said it seems counterintuitive.
"One would think that investments that are minimal would have a minimal impact on a portfolio," she said.
The only board member to speak during the discussion period was Medhat Moussa, who argued divesting from companies involved in weapons industry and fossil fuels is easier than the committee makes it out to be, with a number of both weapons and fossil-fuel free ETFS available.
“This is an educational institution; we should be part of having a peaceful world,” he said.
Meanwhile, interim president Rene van Acker said the statements from the activist group were defamatory towards the university and “conflates the issues.”
He added it’s “not clear what problem … they’re trying to solve.”
During the meeting concerns were also raised regarding the efficacy of the current special action request policy as it hasn’t been updated since 2016. A motion was passed to review the policy and pause any special action requests while the review is underway.
Any new special action requests submitted in the meantime will be held until the policy is revised.
“This is not something we will be taking lightly, and it will not be done hastily,” Andison said.
I’ve been using ifconfig.me for a while, you can curl it on the command line