Princeton University governing body rejects sustainable endowment investment proposal

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 4, 2015
Princeton, NJ On May 4, Princeton University publicly rejected a proposal for integrating
sustainability-motivated management practices into the University endowment. The Princeton
Sustainable Investment Initiative (PSII), a group of undergraduate and graduate students at
Princeton University, received a letter from the Universitys Resources Committee on May 1
rejecting action on each element of their proposal calling for a long-term sustainable investment
strategy for Princetons endowment. The proposal was submitted to the Resources Committee
on December 10 and has gathered 1,600 signatures from the University community. The
Resources Committee is a part of the campuss governing body and has the power to recommend
student-initiated proposals to the Board of Trustees.
The PSII proposal and petition ask the University to join the growing body of schools,
foundations, and religious groups that have committed to reducing the environmental harms of
their investments. They define sustainable investing as a holistic approach to the management
of the Universitys finances that recognizes the interdependence of environmental ethics and
future financial security.1 Its specific requests are that the University officially adopt the UN
Principles for Responsible Investment, publish an annual estimate of the carbon footprint of the
University endowment, and actively manage its investments for environmental and financial
sustainability. Rather than advocating specifically for divestment, the proposal asks that the
University create a committee of democratically-elected representatives drawn from students,
faculty, and administration, including those with financial and environmental expertise. They
would be given responsibility for developing a set of binding guidelines for sustainable
investment that put the endowment in line with PSIIs belief that Princeton University has both
an ethical obligation to respond and the capacity to lead.2
The Resources Committee is a division of the Universitys governing body called the
Council of Princeton University Community (CPUC). The CPUC is responsible for bringing
concerns before the Princeton community, and they have recently discussed sexual misconduct,
mental health, and diversity and equity issues. The Resources Committee is a standing
committee of the CPUC that was set up to deliberate on questions of procurement and
management of the Universitys financial resources,3 and is the administrative channel for
students to bring concerns about the management of the endowment to the administrations
attention. They have never brought a student concern to attention of the Board of Trustees,
despite a number of petitions in the past two years.
Since its introduction to the student body on November 20th, the petition has drawn over
1,600 signatures from across the university community. More than 1,200 undergraduates (24%
of the student body) have signed, 18 student groups have endorsed the petition, and notable
faculty signatories include renowned philosopher Prof. Peter Singer and leading climate scientist
Prof. Michael Oppenheimer.
1

Princeton Sustainable Investment Initiative proposal: http://www.princetonsustainableinvestment.org/

PSII proposal
3
CPUC Resources Committee website: http://www.princeton.edu/vpsec/cpuc/committees/rc/
2

The Resources Committee decision letter was followed by a public announcement on

Monday, May 4, which was attended by 45 students who silently protested the decision as it was
announced. An interactive sketch critiquing the endowments investment practices that
originated from an environmental performance class was performed as participants of the CPUC
meeting left the auditorium.
Princeton Universitys endowment is the largest university endowment per-capita in the
world, at 21 billion USD in 2014, with an annual growth rate of about 19.6%.4 The endowment
is currently estimated to have three to five percent of its investments in fossil fuel companies
alone.
The Princeton Sustainable Investment Initiative intends to continue building community
support for the proposal, and hopes to see a reversal in the Universitys decision.
Reactions from the Princeton University community:
Prior to the Resources Committee decision, student and faculty quotes regarding importance of
sustainable investment:
-

Peter Singer: Princeton's scientists and other faculty are among the leaders in modeling
climate change and exploring its political and ethical implications. The university should
show, by its own actions, that this theoretical understanding has practical consequences.
"As a member of the younger generation, it is my duty to fight for the future our our
planet. As a member of the university, it is my duty to hold it responsible for its actions,
and something needs to change about Princeton's continued investment in
environmentally irresponsible corporations." -- Cindy Liu (Undergradute Class of 18)
Princeton, as a large and powerful institution that others look up to has a responsibility
to take action when a situation is as urgent as our planet's is now. Princeton says it works
"in the nation's service and in the service of all nations" and tells its graduates to do the
same, but these words are meaningless if Princeton doesn't take a stand about such things
in ways that matter, and I believe this way does matter. -- Noor Borbieva (Alumnus
Class of 96)
Princeton has both the responsibility and the power to take action on climate change,
and show a commitment deeper than words to the future of our nation and beyond.
Through the symbolic and actual impact of this move, Princeton leads its peers and
inspires other major players to follow suit. -- Tristan Schrader (Undergraduate Class of
18)
See open letter to the Resources Committee by Prof. Michael Oppenheimer

Following the Resources Committee decision:

-

Phil Hannam: It seems that the University feels threatened by a transparent processinformed by the best available climate science to determine how the endowment can be
managed sustainably and consistent with the University value of serving all nations.

Princeton press release: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S41/35/66I18/index.xml?section=topstories

The University has used faulty arguments to defend its maximization of short-term
returns that enrich us at Princeton while ignoring the climate risks our investments create
for the society we purport to serve.
Leigh Anne Schriever: Princetons administration has demonstrated yet again that, even
though they congratulate themselves on having bright and passionate students, they
refuse to genuinely engage with their concerns or change policies even when there is
demonstrable campus consensus on an issue. By rejecting this proposal, the University
has attempted to shut down a dialogue about sustainable investment and how the
endowment is managed, but the student body here will not accept that.
Mason Herson-Hord: Beyond the questionability of the Resources Committees
reasoning, the Universitys standard of disassociation is itself highly suspect. It is a pretty
unfortunate fact that the standard was first introduced under President Bowen to raise the
burden on those calling for divestment from apartheid South Africa, as a way to protect
the corporations whose board of directors he served on. This will likely be a major
obstacle to a sensible policy of sustainably shifting investments to reduce our
Universitys ecological footprint and hold criminal corporations accountable for their
destructive actions.
Dayton Martindale: It's certainly disappointing that a proposal we spent a lot of time
crafting, that got a lot of support (and no organized opposition) from the Princeton
community, and that we specifically designed to be moderate and reasonable was rejected
by the administration. But it's important to remember that social change doesn't happen
overnight--for example, it took decades of activism before the university divested from
apartheid South Africa. As climate change worsens the environmental movement is only
getting stronger, and we won't be taking no for an answer.

Suggested Media Contacts:

Undergraduate student and PSII leader: Leigh Anne Schriever (leighas@princeton.edu)
Graduate student contact: Phil Hannam (phannam@princeton.edu)
Faculty contact: Michael Oppenheimer (omichael@princeton.edu)
Alumni contact: Nathan Ratledge (ratledge@princeton.edu)
Website: http://www.princetonsustainableinvestment.org/
Articles/op-eds/letters to the editor by PSII:
http://dailyprincetonian.com/opinion/2014/12/princeton-stop-financing-environmentaldestruction/
http://princetonprogressive.com/2015/04/15/princeton-princo-environmental-responsibility/
https://paw.princeton.edu/issues/2015/04/01/sections/letters/1058/
Articles about PSII:
http://dailyprincetonian.com/news/2014/12/princeton-sustainable-investment-petitions-forchanges-in-u-investment/
http://dailyprincetonian.com/opinion/2015/02/where-we-are-on-sustainability/
https://paw.princeton.edu/issues/2015/04/01/pages/8139/