The UC Sudan Divestment Taskforce will publicize its official
proposal on Monday for divestment of University of California funds
from companies with holdings in Sudan.
The campaign was started at UCLA through the Darfur Action
Committee, a group put together last year which was recipient of
extensive funding from USAC this year. It has grown to a UC-wide
push to have the university divest from Sudan, in an attempt to
interfere with the Sudanese government’s ability to perform
genocide on citizens of the Darfur region.
The task force started out with a request to the regents for
divestment from 15 companies last spring. Since then, members have
researched and created an extensive proposal for full divestment.
The proposal includes evidence that divesting from the area would
affect the government’s ability to finance its debts and stay
in power, said Tristan Reed, chairman of the UC Divestment
Taskforce.
The campaign’s proposal will include an overview of the
situation in Darfur, arguments for divestment, and an outline for
full divestment modeled after U.S. trade sanctions against Sudan
and the divestment by the state of Illinois, Reed said.
The proposal will be presented to Student Regent Adam Rosenthal,
who Reed said has taken up the issue and shown support.
It will also be presented to the UC Board of Regents at its
scheduled meeting in November, although the issue is not on the
regents’ agenda.
“Divestment creates incentives for companies to either
leave (the country) or call for change,” Reed said.
“The proposal specifically excludes certain companies that
benefit the people, such as agriculture and
pharmaceuticals.”
The campaign may face difficulties due to the way in which the
UC now plans its investments.
“We don’t invest in companies, we invest in funds
that have in their mix a variety of companies,” said Trey
Davis, a spokesman for the UC Office of the President, adding that
it is now the more common way for institutions to invest.
“The mechanism is not as straightforward,” Davis
added.
The UC now has its funds spread among about 3000 companies.
Divestment campaigns have been run across the country, with
limited success at both Harvard and Stanford. Both schools
announced divestment from only specific companies, while the UC
campaign calls for full divestment from the companies involved in
the area.
Harvard’s campaign started after an article in the Harvard
Crimson campus newspaper revealed that the school was invested in
Petrochina, a company the school’s United Front for
Divestment student group had targeted as one of seven companies for
which they requested divestment due to involvement in Sudan’s
government.
The campaign held a silent rally and garnered a broad range of
support from campus groups. They also threatened to divert the
senior gift from going to the College Fund.
The UC Sudan Divestment Taskforce has not announced any plans
for similar action, but it has been in contact with a variety of
college campaigns across the nation.
Harvard announced its decision to divest from Petrochina last
April, although they claimed it was not as a result of the
influence of student action, La Rue said.
During the Regent’s May meeting, UC students asked the
Regents about divestment during the public comment period and
presented the board with a preliminary list of companies for which
they requested divestment.
The UC Treasurer responded to the UC Sudan Divestment
Taskforce’s request for information regarding UC’s
investment in 15 companies involved in Sudan.
No other action has been taken been taken on the part of the
Regents.
“This board of Regents has decided its investment
decisions on the basis of financial criteria,” said Davis,
the UC spokesman.
The UC Board of Regents has shown willingness to alter financial
decisions based on social considerations in the past. In the 1980s
the board divested funds from South Africa to put pressure on the
government’s apartheid policy, and the UC also decided not to
invest in tobacco companies when given the option, Reed said.
But Davis said that the decision to divest UC funds from South
Africa during the apartheid would not necessarily have bearing in
the current situation.