Campus Divestment Campaigns: JLens Unpacks the Demands and Consequences

Anti-Israel protests and encampments became regular fixtures on many college campuses in the months following Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel. From Columbia to UCLA, the pattern was similar, with students setting up tents in prominent spots and refusing to leave. In many cases, they have taken over and vandalized campus buildings, disrupted classes and graduations, declared Zionists unwelcome, and harassed Jewish students, creating a climate of fear among Jewish and other Israel-supporting members of the college community. Some campus protestors were even seen lauding Hamas and advocating for violence. 

Four years after their high-school graduations were scaled down or canceled because of Covid, many college seniors saw the same thing happen to their university commencements this year, albeit because of the threat of disruption by protestors. And while encampments generally dissipated when school ended for the summer–or when they were forcibly dispersed by police–there is every reason to believe anti-Israel students (and non-student participants) will re-pitch their tents and rehang their signs when they return to campus for the fall semester. 

In order to effectively combat this campaign, it is essential to understand the protestors’ demands and the powerful counter-arguments against them. Articulating a clear, convincing case against divestment is increasingly urgent, especially as some universities, such as Brown, UC Riverside, The New School, and Johns Hopkins have negotiated agreements with protestors to end encampments in return for debating and voting on their demands for divestment.  

Understanding the Divestment Campaign 

This wave of protests is the latest iteration of the wider Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign that has gained steam in recent years. BDS is an international campaign aimed at delegitimizing and pressuring Israel through diplomatic, financial, professional, academic, and cultural isolation. Its ultimate goal is not to create a Palestinian state, but to dismantle the Jewish state. 

Campus calls for divestment also harken back to–and are purposely modeled after–the successful 1980s campus divestment movement against South Africa as well as more recent campus divestments relating to causes such as gun violence and environmentalism.  

Even aside from the false and offensive implication that Israel is on par with the deeply oppressive Apartheid-era South Africa, there are significant moral, economic, and practical differences between previous divestment movements and the current campaign. 

So, what do these protestors actually want?  

Although the details differ campus to campus, the short answer is to divest from Israel. That means the university would cease doing business with or investing through their endowments in any company connected to Israel. 

Economic Implications 

To be clear, some protestors are demanding university divestment from all companies with any connection to, or operations in, Israel. That does not just include weapons manufacturers like Lockheed Martin but also companies like Amazon, Google, McDonalds and every retail chain store and tech company with an Israel location or contract with an Israeli business.  

Needless to say, that amounts to a lot of companies that would suddenly be excluded from an investment portfolio. More than 100 companies from the S&P 500 conduct business in Israel, including many of the world's largest and most successful companies such as Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet (Google) and Amazon.  

Divestment from Israel could therefore result in lower returns and a less diversified portfolio. This could adversely affect the university's ability to fund scholarships and research, and to maintain its facilities. 

Compounding the impact, deciding to divest from Israel risks alienating alumni and donors, who could decide to reduce their contributions or withhold them entirely, resulting in greater financial losses for the university. 

Fiduciary & Legal Implications 

The potential for these negative consequences to the health of university endowments raises another issue arguing against divestment from Israel. University endowments are run by Investment Offices, with an Investment Committee holding ultimate oversight over investment decisions, responsible for reviewing asset allocation policies, endowment performance, and strategy proposals. Investment Committees have a fiduciary duty, which is a legal responsibility, to make decisions in the best financial interests of the university when managing the endowment investment. Allowing political considerations and pressure campaigns to dictate investment decisions could be a breach of this duty. 

Choosing to divest from Israel could also bring additional legal hurdles for universities. More than 30 states have laws or executive orders prohibiting or discouraging BDS activities. State attorneys general could pursue legal action against universities engaging in boycotts directed against companies doing business with Israel.  

Delegitimizing Israel 

Agreeing to divest from Israel would set a dangerous precedent for universities. Doing so opens the door for activists supporting all sorts of causes for all sorts of reasons to make similar demands that their university divest from companies involved in a wide range of industries or practices. Such a trend could significantly limit the endowment's investment options, affecting returns and the ability to support university goals. 

Instead of pushing for divestment, activists could advocate for their universities to promote programs of peace and co-existence between Israelis and Palestinians. They could demand their university endowments become activist shareholders in the companies in which they invest, using their leverage to push those companies to make strategic investments in the Palestinian economy and in peace-building initiatives.  

But that is not what is happening. The sheer breadth of activists’ demands makes it clear what their real agenda is: isolation and delegitimization of Israel.  

Their intention becomes clearer when you consider some of the slogans protestors have used–including “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”--explicitly calling for the eradication of Israel. Others have taken aim at all Jews, with protesters at Columbia University, for instance, yelling to Jewish students to “go back to Poland.” 

Israel, like every country, is imperfect and faces tremendous societal challenges. But Israel is a democracy where citizens enjoy equal rights and the world’s only Jewish state. Comparisons to Apartheid-era South Africa and accusations of genocide are factually false, morally misguided, and used as justifications for the delegitimization of Israel. But they don’t hold up to scrutiny. 

The ramifications of these accusations and of campus protests extend far beyond the immediate demands for divestment. Jewish students across numerous campuses report feeling increasingly marginalized and unsafe, with many questioning their place within the university community. As universities grapple with these complex issues, they must balance the right to protest with their responsibility to provide a safe and inclusive environment for all students especially as anti-Israel protestors vow to fight on. The ongoing debate surrounding divestment not only affects university finances and policies but also shapes the very fabric of campus life and the educational experience for countless students. This needs to be taken into consideration as some universities will be debating and voting on divestment proposals in the coming months.  

ADL publishes this piece in partnership with JLens.