The arguments against divestment from Bruce Zimmerman seem appropriate for an introductory course on finance, not a policy argument from the financial maven who manages UT's billions ("UT's investments remain in Sudan," Jan. 23). It's not hard to find an index fund, even for global equity, with little or no corporations on the Sudan Divestment Task Force's list of companies. All U.S. companies are sanctioned from operating there. Fidelity and Warren Buffet sold their enormous holdings in PetroChina. Several firms offer Sudan-free funds. Company after company, including Weatherford International, has pulled out of Sudan. Now, 58 universities and 22 states (including Texas) have adopted targeted Sudan divestment policies. Is UTIMCO ignoring the risk of investing in companies that are targeted by a powerful international divestment campaign? Will philanthropists continue to create endowments for the University if they realize their donations are being invested irresponsibly? Do the professors and faculty whose pension funds are being handled by UTIMCO have a vote?
In response to the letter in which Zimmerman listed alcohol, tobacco, pornography, nuclear proliferation and environmental concerns as part of a slippery slope argument, read an old Firing Line by Leran Minc, a student leader in the campaign: "Equating the murder of innocent people to social ideas such as tobacco and environmental agenda is ridiculous," Minc states. "Divestment is a unique tool for use in the foreign policy arena and therefore would be difficult to use in these and other social ideas. When did mass murder of a people become simply just a social idea anyway?" Targeted divestment involves engagement with mutual funds and companies, leading to more companies pulling out and more mutual funds becoming genocide-free. You cannot engage a tobacco company to ask them to stop selling nicotine and tar packaged together. However, you can ask a company to stop manufacturing their products in Sudan. His argument could have been convincing if South African divestment led public funds to slide the slippery slope on other issues, but it does not.
Zimmerman must explain why UTIMCO investment managers should not use investments they control to implement public policy, as responsible investment managers all over the world have already done. What starts here changes the world, and UT is responsible for some of the best advocacy in the nation. If UTIMCO won't act, the responsibility falls to the Board of Regents.
The Daily Texan Firing Line
Re: UT's investments remain in Sudan
A moral and financial imperative
