For the first time since students began their campaign for
divestment from Sudan earlier this year, the UC Board of Regents
publicly discussed its investments in the country in a meeting at
UCLA on Wednesday.
It did not address divestment or talk of a genocide, and for now
the official response from all regents is “no
comment.”
The topic has come to the regents because some students feel the
UC should take a stand against alleged human rights abuses that
have occurred over the last two years.
But the board did address the holdings the university has in the
region.
In a brief discussion on Sudan, Treasurer for Investments David
Russ said the UC currently has $66 million in companies that invest
in Sudan. These are mainly oil companies which work in the region,
he added.
The treasurer also expressed an interest in cooperating with
students in examining the UC’s records and determining
exactly which companies support the Sudanese government.
Students say this public discussion of the investments in the
region and openness to cooperation was a victory.
“It was a success … because they brought up the issue of
Sudan,” said Bridget Smith, the chairwoman of the UC Sudan
Divestment Taskforce.
For today, that was the main goal.
“We basically used the meeting as a forum to introduce the
program for divestment,” said Tristan Reed of the
Taskforce.
The Taskforce hopes to see divestment on the agenda for the next
regents meeting at the end of this month and officials seem to see
this as a possibility. Regent Chairman Gerald Parsky said he would
refrain from making comments until the issue was officially brought
up at a meeting.
Dozens of students were at the meeting to show the regents their
support for divestment in Sudan due to the actions of the
government, which have been labeled as genocide.
The government of Sudan has conducted and continues to carry out
an “ethnically based campaign against the different African
peoples of Darfur,” said Edward Alpers, a professor of
African history at UCLA.
Estimates of the death toll range from 180,000 to 400,000
people, and almost 2 million individuals have been displaced, he
said.
Students say the university has a responsibility to take a stand
against crisis by taking money out of Sudan.
“One of the goals right now is really conveying to the
regents why divestment is so important … (and) remind them of the
historical moral tradition,” Reed said.
The UC played a key role in divesting from South Africa in the
1980s, Smith said. “Once they divested, it sent ripples
through the world.”
Harvard has now set a precedent for taking action on Sudan by
divesting $4.4 million from nation, she said.
Members of the Taskforce also compared the crisis in Darfur to
times when the UC did not act against human rights violations.
“Eleven years ago the world watched helplessly as some
800,000 people were slaughtered over three months … (in)
Rwanda,” Alpers said.
The world, and the UC, would not stand by again as Africans are
being killed, he said.
The crisis in Darfur has been building for two years and is
well-known internationally and can be stopped in a way the Rwandan
genocide could not, due in part to the short time period of the
events, he added.
The issue of divestment is complicated by various factors.
For one, the $66 million is connected with investments that
amount to billions of dollars ““ to withdraw money from a few
companies may mean withdrawing from many others as well, Smith
said.
For another, the university’s decisions on investments are
made on financial ““ not social ““ grounds, said Trey
Davis, a spokesman for the UC Office of the President.
“The regents have a policy of making investment decisions
on the basis of financial criteria,” he said. “Strictly
on the basis of financial criteria.”
And even if the UC were to make investment decisions for
so-called social reasons, it would be faced with a multitude of
different groups clamoring for divestment from one area or
another.
“For every stock in the portfolio, there’s a group
who would be opposed to it,” Russ said.
But Reed said Darfur was not the same as just any plea for
divestment because of the magnitude of the crisis.
“Darfur is a special case,” Reed said. “They
are confronted by divestment (requests) all the time, but Darfur is
a unique case.”