Why Queen’s won’t divest $222 million

Queen’s divesting from companies conducting business in or with the State of Israel won’t change what’s happening in the Middle East—it would just make a statement. And that, the University says, is exactly the problem.

The 12-day encampment on campus. QUAD called on the University to divest its endowment from 85 companies in the Pooled Endowment Fund (PEF), which they say, “facilitate the illegal occupation of Occupied Palestinian Territories.”

Despite 44 in person consultations and over 300 written submissions, the Principal’s Review Committee recommended against divesting a combined $222 million as of December 2023 from their PEF, which s long-term endowed gifts such as scholarships, and the PIF, which manages short-term and operational university investments.

The Committee found that divestment wouldn’t “contribute to a change in behaviour by others” and doing so “would only be a political or symbolic statement” that “would violate Queen’s policy of intuitional neutrality.”

Divesting, according to the report, also conflicts with the University’s fiduciary responsibilities—the legal obligation to manage its investments prudently, with loyalty to beneficiaries.

A familiar pattern

QUAD’s 33-page report isn’t the first special request to grace Queen’s desk.

In 1987, Queen’s divested from companies linked to South African apartheid after nearly a decade of student protests. Nine years of student advocacy and pressure on the University culminated in 60 students and faculty storming a Board of Trustees meeting. Months later, Queen’s pulled its $23.3 million in investments.

Nearly three decades later, in 2014, a formal divestment request from Queen’s Backing Action on Climate Change (QBACC) asked the University to cut ties with fossil fuel companies. After the formation of the Advisory Committee on Divestment of Fossil Fuels, the request was rejected in 2015, with the University stating there was insufficient evidence of social injury.

Ten years after their initial request, QBACC’s still fighting for the University to divest its $1.492 billion endowment fund from fossil fuels.

While QUAD was hoping Queen’s would break this pattern, they’re not surprised.

“We’re working within a colonial institution, and these are the way colonial intuitions work,” Zainab Naqvi, MSc ’26, said in an interview with The Journal. Naqvi is a member of QUAD and was a part of the group who researched and drafted the special request.

“They will always choose to prioritize amassing wealth and their own personal gains, rather than looking at the consequences of what they’re actually doing,” she said.

What it actually means to divest

Divestment is much easier said than done, according to Professor Emeritus Robin Boadway, who specializes in public sector and welfare economics.

Boadway explained Queen’s investment strategy is designed to balance risk and return, with managers making decisions based on financial performance rather than ethical considerations.

“The strategy is to invest the funds in assets that give the best combination of risk and return,” he said.

Because assets with higher returns are often riskier, investment managers must carefully judge how much risk is acceptable. “If we invest everything in very risky assets, there’s a possibility we’re going to lose a lot of money,” he added.

While divestment might be ethically justified in certain cases, it’s still complicated and must be weighed against fiduciary responsibilities, Boadway noted.

“Fiduciary duty simply means they’re supposed to act in the best interest of the people that they’re serving,” he said. “In order to make a case for divestment, one has to argue there are reasons for compromising the fiduciary duty that the fund has.”

Boadway outlines several justifications for divestment that can meet this threshold—including if investments illegal activities or violate international conventions Canada has signed, such as the Geneva Convention or the United Nations Human Rights Convention.

“If an investment is being used to finance an illegal activity, then you could—even if that illegal activity is very profitable—say, ‘we’re justified in divesting,’” he said.

He added that in Canada, such cases are rare without government direction. Drawing comparisons to Canada’s sanctions against Russia after the invasion of Ukraine, Boadway said Canadian corporations invested in Russian businesses would be an argument for divestment.

But when it comes to divesting from Israel, Boadway said it could be seen as “a political statement rather than an economic statement.”

Given the vast range of investment opportunities around the world, removing a handful of companies from Queen’s portfolio wouldn’t significantly impact the University’s overall financial performance. The decision to divest, he said, wouldn’t stem from an economic necessity—it would be a political stance.

That, he explained, is what makes it difficult for institutions like Queen’s to act unless prompted by a higher authority. Without sanctions or direction from the Canadian government, universities are left to make those calls on their own. And most, like Queen’s, are hesitant to take that first step.

Still, for QUAD, the symbolism matters.

“Even if it was $1 in these investments, we would still be calling for divestment, because we know that $1 is contributing to shedding blood of Palestinians, the destruction of their home, destruction of their lands,” Naqvi said.

“To say that it’s symbolic and political is absolutely inhumane.”

What about institutional neutrality?

While $222 million isn’t chump change, the money isn’t the issue—it’s institutional neutrality.

At the heart of the Committee’s rejection is the University’s commitment to what it calls “institutional neutrality”—the idea that the University shouldn’t take political positions on contested global issues.

The Committee warns that divestment, even if ed by of the community, would risk compromising Queen’s role as an “open and inclusive” academic environment by aligning the institution with a particular side.

“The University’s role as an institution is to facilitate and the students and faculty in their quest to [discuss political and social issues] lawfully,” the report states, “without promoting any particular position.”

This principle has been reinforced by Principal Patrick Deane, who sent December 2024 Board of Trustees meeting. Deane said Queen’s has a responsibility to safeguard academic freedom by ensuring the University itself doesn’t take collective political stances.

“The pressure to comment or adopt a position can be considerable, but the University, by definition and mission, is a diverse plurality: a large community that includes many different perspectives, which the institution considers and evaluates through dialogue and research,” he said in the e-mail.

He added while individuals at Queen’s are encouraged to speak out and express personal views, the University must remain above the political fray to protect its core mission.

Yet, QUAD sees this as continuing to uphold the status quo and believes that when the University chooses to invest in companies tied to weapons manufacturing it’s already taking a side—just not acknowledging it.

What sets this request apart from previous divestment campaigns, the Committee argues, is the absence of national or international consensus.

When Queen’s divested from South African companies during apartheid and later from Chinese oil firms operating in Sudan in 2007, the Canadian government had already imposed sanctions. There was widespread global condemnation in both cases.

But in the case of Israel, the Canadian government hasn’t issued sanctions against the State itself.

While the Canadian government has Canada continues to maintain full diplomatic and economic relations with Israel. The Committee points to this “lack of consensus” as a key reason why it cannot act.

“There are widely divergent views on this topic,” the report says, “and no general international consensus exists in this case.”

Upholding the status quo

Queen’s isn’t wrong when they say there’s a lack of consensus, and they’re not alone in their decision not to divest.

Institutions across Canada and the United States have taken a similar stance, often citing institutional neutrality as reasons to stay the course.

When faced with similar demands, the University of Toronto the University of Michigan both reaffirmed longstanding policies that restrict divestment decisions to financial factors like risk and return, excluding political influence.

Some universities, including Brown University, the University of Minnesota, and Northwestern, pledged last spring to consider divestment proposals as part of agreements ending campus encampments. But since then, Brown and Minnesota have declined requests to divest, opting not to alter their investment policies.

Smaller institutions like Union Theological Seminary in New York City have taken action, announcing in May 2024 that it would divest from companies it believes benefit from the war in Gaza.

QUAD sees Queen’s refusal to divest as part of a broader trend of elite institutions choosing caution over conscience.

“If Queen’s were to divest, it would have sent a powerful message to other universities and the government,” Naqvi said. “It would have shown that when you talk about equity, diversity, inclusion, and decolonization, you have to also show it.”

Instead, Naqvi says, Queen’s is doing the bare minimum, arguing the University’s investments contradict its stated values and actively harm communities it claims to .

“By choosing not to divest, Queen’s is upholding the bloody status quo,” Naqvi said. “Their hands—all of their hands—are red.”

What comes next

Despite Queen’s decision not to divest, QUAD isn’t giving up.

Naqvi says they’re taking inspiration from past resistance movements—mainly the South African divestment which took nine years—and will continue to remind the University, “We will not stop. We will not rest until Queen’s divests.”

For QUAD, the divestment request was never just about the endowment—it was about forcing the University to reckon with its values. That fight, they believe, is only just beginning.

“This moment is bigger than Queen’s, bigger than Canada,” Naqvi said.

“It’s part of a student intifada happening across the world—to show that we will not let these institutions, these corporations, snatch our souls and to snatch our humanities into thinking that just because there’s somebody who lives across the world, their life is meaningless and that we shouldn’t care.”

Corrections

The Journal regrets the error

All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be ed, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to [email protected].

• Previous
• Next