NEWS ANALYSIS: Wary of Precedent, Corporation Cites ‘Unique’ Circumstances

While wiping its hands yesterday of a largely symbolic stake in PetroChina, the University also sought to ensure the decision would not set a precedent for future divestment campaigns.

A clearly reluctant Harvard Corporation called the circumstances “unusual,” “extraordinary,” and “unique” in a lengthy but carefully worded statement that said divestment from PetroChina was consistent with the University’s decades-old policy.

The Corporation fellows leaned heavily on the writings of former University President Derek C. Bok, whose open letters in 1979 have guided the University in an era when its financial reach extends to all sections of the globe.

Bok’s letters argued against divestment from companies conducting business in apartheid South Africa but left open the possibility of “rare occasions when the very nature of a company’s business makes it inappropriate for a university to invest in the enterprise.” But by declining to set a precise standard, opting instead for malleable words like “improper” and “immoral,” Bok offered ample support for those on either side of any divestment debate.

“That shows I wrote with appropriate Delphic clarity,” Bok said yesterday.

But he declined to take a position on divestment from PetroChina, saying he does not, as a rule, comment on University policy.

“I never bite the hand that quotes me,” Bok said.

In attempting to avoid precedent-setting language in its statement yesterday, the Corporation said it was not seeking to influence PetroChina or other investors in the oil firm, though advocates for divestment have said such a move would do exactly that.

“Typically, in such cases, the act of divestment is not taken with the expectation that it will induce a company to cease its objectionable operations,” the Corporation wrote, quoting a report by the Advisory Committee on Shareholder Responsibility. “Rather, to paraphrase President Bok, the University simply does not consider it proper to make investments in the enterprise in question.”

That distinction appeared intended to set the University apart from any larger debate over PetroChina or the genocide in Sudan, including growing movements at other campuses to divest as well. But the wording—“the University simply does not consider it proper”—left little room to discern why PetroChina was unique among several other holdings to which some advocates have objected.

Certainly, the University’s investment in the Chinese oil firm threatened to ignite a large public-relations problem for the University. The once-fledgling Harvard movement to divest from PetroChina had gained considerable momentum in the new year.

A long-planned week of events focusing on the Sudanese genocide began Sunday with a walk of “solidarity and mourning” organized by members of the student coalition United Front for Divestment. The Darfur Action Group also sponsored a panel discussion at the Institute of Politics last night.

The Senior Gift Plus campaign, which added new leverage to calls for divestment, also helped form a consensus around opposition to Harvard’s holdings in PetroChina. The campaign posed a serious problem for Senior Gift fundraisers, who declined to support the University’s investment in PetroChina, but argued that withholding money from the Senior Gift fund was not the appropriate means of protest.

In an interview yesterday, Jessica E. Vascellaro, spokeswoman for the Senior Gift Executive Committee, said she hoped the University’s decision to divest would put an end to the controversy.

“We’re all glad that we can sort of put this behind us and continue talking to as many seniors as possible,” said Vascellaro, who is also a Crimson editor.

—Staff writer Zachary M. Seward can be reached at seward@fas.harvard.edu.