October 15, 2021

Dear Members of the Advisory Committee on University Resources Management (ACURM),

I am writing in response to the report I received on August 2 regarding the Committee’s

recommendation to reject a resolution and petition presented by the Undergraduate Council of
Students to rename the Thomas J. Watson Sr. Center for Information Technology. As you know,
ACURM, which was established on July 1, 2020, succeeds the previous Advisory Committee on
Corporate Responsibility in Investment Practices (ACCRIP), which was charged with
considering issues of ethical and moral responsibility in the investment policies of Brown
University.

One of the critical responsibilities of ACURM is to report to the University community on its
actions and make public recommendations on items brought before the Committee. Let me begin
by thanking the members of the Committee for rigorously examining this issue over the course
of the 2020-2021 academic year, and conducting this work amid a pandemic, which presented
many challenges. The Committee conducted extensive campus and external stakeholder
engagement, and this high-quality report reflects these important views and perceptions and sets
a high bar for future Committee reports.

I am in support of your conclusion that there is “no direct evidence that [Thomas J. Watson Sr.]
knew, especially prior to 1938, that Nazis were planning a Holocaust nor that he wanted to aid
and abet them, nor took action to actively do so.” The Committee consulted with internationally
renowned experts and laid out a compelling case to reject the petition to rename the building,
which the report notes was based on unproven claims. Importantly, it also states that contracts
that were raised as potential evidence do not show that Watson personally approved of Nazi
policy.

I also want to respond to the three recommendations put forth by the Committee to address the
underlying question of business ethics at the core of the UCS petition.

First, I am supportive of the establishment of an annual conference or lecture on an important

topic of ethics in the conduct of international business. Members of the Office of the President
will consult with relevant faculty to determine the appropriate academic department, center or
institute to host and organize this programming.

With respect to your two additional recommendations, at this time the University does not plan
to place a plaque in the Thomas J. Watson Sr. Center for Information Technology to provide
contemporary analysis and historical context or form a committee to review “current and future
names of all buildings and programs at Brown in order to ensure that these names are associated
with donors and individuals whose values and integrity are in line with those of the University.”

As you may recall from our most recent meeting on December 4, 2020, we engaged in a robust
discussion about the University’s Gift Acceptance Policy and Naming and Renaming Policy,
which were most recently updated and approved by the Corporation of Brown University in
October 2019, in addition to a broader conversation about the committee’s charge. I expressed
my confidence – and remain confident – that the University has strong policies and procedures
with respect to issues involving the acceptance of gifts and the naming of Brown buildings,
spaces, programs and positions.

As stated in the Gift Acceptance Policy: “Brown University strives to ensure that gifts are in
amounts appropriate to carry out their specified use; that donor requirements and restrictions are
acceptable to the University; that gifts are accepted and administered in a manner appropriate for
a tax-exempt institution; and that the gifts enhance the reputation and standing of the University
and do not compromise its mission.”

Furthermore, the Naming and Renaming Policy states: “In general, the President and the
Corporation, or those to whom authority to approve naming proposals is delegated, will not
approve proposals for naming where, in their judgment, doing so: is not aligned with Brown’s
mission of education, research and scholarship; compromises the academic freedom of the
university community; and/or being associated with the proposed name could inflict damage on
the University’s reputation, standing or integrity or be contrary to University values.”

Should issues about gift acceptance or naming arise in the future, the University will adhere to
the principles by which gifts are accepted that advance Brown’s mission and that guide decision-
making in the extraordinary circumstance of considering whether to rename or remove a name
that had been previously approved. Members of the University community may also continue to
make requests to ACURM to consider matters relevant to the Committee’s charge.

I look forward to attending the ACURM meeting on Tuesday, October 19, to further discuss the
resolution of this issue and to address additional questions. Thank you for your service on this
important committee.

Sincerely,

Christina H. Paxson