The mission of a college or university is to develop and transmit knowledge. Doing so effectively calls for maintaining an atmosphere of free inquiry in which no one dictates that certain subjects are taboo, that certain methods of inquiry are unacceptable, or that certain conclusions are illegitimate. Whether an argument for the existence of God is sound or our government’s foreign policy misguided are matters for discussion, not decree.
This open atmosphere is threatened by a school’s adopting an official stance on issues unrelated to its educational mission. Doing so alienates dissenters and represses the productive disagreements that characterize intellectual inquiry.
Suppose, however, that an institution, rather than proclaiming its support for a cause that supposedly demands everyone’s allegiance, decides to divest from the stock of a company believed to be unethical. The first problem with taking such action is that selling stock is logically equivalent to someone buying it. If, though, you believe that holding a particular stock is immoral, then so is enabling a buyer to do the same. The situation is akin to possessing a dangerous toy and seeking to rid oneself of it by selling it to another family. (See Steven M. Cahn, “The Divestiture Puzzle,” in Steven M. Cahn, ed., Exploring Philosophy, Eighth Edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2024), 547–548.)
An even more fundamental problem is that cutting ties with immoral companies requires judging which are moral and which are not. By doing so, the institution is in essence adopting an official stance on an issue unrelated to its educational mission, thereby again repressing disagreement and alienating dissenters.
Understandably, schools wish to grow their funds, but buying and selling individual stocks is not the only way to do so. Other investment products can be used, including treasuries, commodities, and a variety of options that do not imply anything about the moral status of any particular company.
Such approaches avoid pressuring anyone at the school to subscribe to a decision that is tantamount to either an endorsement or a rejection. Further, any call for divestment would be pointless because the school would not own the stock of any specific company.
Granted, an investment manager might over time earn a larger return for the institution by choosing individual stocks, but maximizing money is not a school’s only goal. Just as a college or university should not accept a gift from anyone demanding in return control over the school’s staffing or curriculum, an increase in the probability of a greater return on investment is not worth the risk of fomenting enmity among administrators, faculty, and students.
Any specific stock may at one time be undisputed to purchase, yet suddenly become controversial to own. and the demand for divestiture can quickly undermine campus comity. A wiser policy for a college or university is not to own individual stocks in the first place.
Steven M. Cahn
Steven M Cahn is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the City University of New York Graduate Center. Among the recent books he has authored are Teaching Philosophy: A Guide (Routledge, 2018); Inside Academia: Professors, Politics, and Policies (Rutgers, 2019); Navigating Academic Life: How the System Works (Routledge, 2021); Professors as Teachers (Wipf and Stock, 2022), and, most recently, From Student to Scholar: A Candid Guide to Becoming a Professor, Second Edition (Wipf and Stock, 2024).
Very interesting, thanks.