To the editor: Divestment is an illusion. It is a ritual cleaning without economic consequences. Making investment decisions based on non-financial considerations only gives the self-satisfaction of believing that one has “done something.” (“UC Berkeley will consider divesting from weapons makers as pro-Palestinian protesters leave camp,” May 14)
Changing ownership of a stock, large number of stocks, or a mutual fund has no financial impact on the underlying asset's profitability, market price, or the asset's ability to raise capital for expansion.
Divestment from tobacco, weapons manufacturing, oil drilling and other industries has shown no discernible impact on the consumption of these products. There is always a market for ownership of these industries. Investors are motivated by the desire to earn a reasonable return with a reasonable risk.
While the proceeds from the sale of unwanted shares can be used to purchase more ethical assets, this change has no financial impact on these more ethical assets.
Endowments exist primarily for long-term financial support and stability of institutions. Restricting the selection of assets for any political or ethical reason undermines the ability of trustees to make the best decisions in the interests of a gift.
Trustees should not indulge in demands to make statements of disapproval on issues of current controversy, which are outside the scope of their responsibilities to the institution. Otherwise, demands for more purity and virtue signaling will continue.
Stephen J. White, Culver City
..
To the editor: The claim that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement “impacts…academic freedom” and the “rights” of students is an unquestionable aphorism of our university systems.
However, what university leaders, the media, and politicians ridiculously fail to challenge is the idea that higher education in this country can or should be funded in part by industries of death and disenfranchisement.
Which students asked for their university endowments to be “indirectly” linked to surveillance and weapons manufacturing companies? And in such a way that it simply becomes a fact on the basis that this is how we, as Americans, finance our lives? Where is freedom for those who believe in a world without constant wars?
The fact that Israel has been the main beneficiary of this militaristic system is no reason to claim that it is the correct way to operate our schools.
Matt Neel, Sherman Oaks
..
To the editor: I just returned from a week-long trip to see and explore four Nazi Holocaust concentration and extermination camps in Poland. Foremost on my mind right now are the State of Israel and the hostages held by Hamas.
When I look at the front page of my hometown newspaper and see posters proclaiming “Long Live the Intifada” and “Academic Boycott,” both directed at a country whose citizens do not all agree with the government's policies, it reminds me of the decades of 1930s and 1940s, when Jews were rejected and ostracized.
The motto “Never again will be now” seems very real. That students are happy to avoid Israel because of government policy is a mistake. Jews will never again apologize for demanding safe haven.
Lise Spiegel, Encino
