The Advisory Committee on Investor Responsibility unanimously voted against advancing a divestment proposal from Dartmouth Divest for Palestine — claiming the proposal “does not engage sufficiently with counterarguments” and lacks “compelling evidence” of community support. The proposal failed all five of the College’s criteria for “completeness,” a metric that determines whether the proposal will be advanced.
The 55-page document, initially submitted to the College on Feb. 18, calls for divestment from six arms manufacturers. The proposal names BAE Systems, Boeing, L3 Harris Technologies, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and RTX Corp as companies that allegedly “directly support Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestine.”
DD4P — a coalition of students, faculty, staff and alumni — wrote in an email statement to The Dartmouth that it is “disappointed” by the decision and will resubmit the proposal with additional information.
“Our coalition of students, alumni, faculty and staff remain committed to the basic principle behind our proposal: institutions of higher learning should not be invested in weapons companies and other corporations complicit in genocide, scholasticide and violations of international law,” DD4P wrote. “Such investments are not in keeping with Dartmouth’s academic mission and its responsibility to its community and the broader world.”
On May 1, the College agreed to issue a response to the divestment proposal by May 20 in exchange for the dismantling of an encampment outside Parkhurst Hall.
ACIR’s response is broken down by the five criteria that assess the political issue and Dartmouth’s relationship to it. First, the committee found that the proposal “only partially” met the criterion that a company’s “actions or inactions are clearly inconsistent with Dartmouth’s history, its values or mission.”
ACIR also wrote that the proposal used “anecdotal” evidence to address the second criterion that “all practicable shareholder rights have been exhausted in seeking to modify the company’s behavior.”
The third criterion stipulates that divestment from a company will make a “material impact on correcting the company’s injurious behavior.” ACIR claims that DD4P did not engage with counterarguments for this criterion, among other missteps.
The proposal also failed the fourth criterion, that divestment will not “compromise Dartmouth’s ability to address the target issue through its academic work and other channels.”
“The proposal does not sufficiently engage the matter of whether its suggested divestment would facilitate additional dialogue on campus,” the response reads.
Lastly, the proposal failed the fifth criterion that the Dartmouth community “has come to consensus to support the proposal.”
“The proposal includes no compelling evidence on the level of support for divestment among students, among faculty, among staff and among alumni,” the committee wrote. “Moreover, the proposal is silent on the matter of how divestment can be treated as a consensus position in the face of what is almost certainly deep opposition to it among some members of the Dartmouth community.”
Pro-Palestinian protesters previously voiced concerns about the ability of student activists to satisfy the fifth criterion and demanded a revised review process that did not include the consensus criterion during the May 1, 2025, encampment. The College did not agree to this demand and stated that the proposal could only be considered under the established process.
The proposal was endorsed by 35 alumni, community, faculty and student groups including the Arab Student Association and Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine, Dartmouth.
ACIR’s response includes a letter from College President Sian Leah Beilock accepting the committee’s decision, stating she will not forward the proposal to the Board of Trustees.
If ACIR finds that a proposal meets the five criteria, it conducts additional research and deliberation before submitting a report and recommendation to the College President, who may choose to refer the proposal to the Board.
“The outcome of this process in no way changes the fact that Dartmouth is committed to cultivating a community that is open to and respectful of differences in opinion — and that greets those interactions as moments to learn and grow,” Beilock wrote.
DD4P wrote that it hopes ACIR will respond to a revised proposal within weeks, rather than months.
“The urgency for Dartmouth to take action on divestment cannot be overstated,” DD4P wrote. “The humanitarian crisis in Gaza grows worse every day, with no aid reaching the region for the past 90 days and 14,000 infants on the brink of starvation.”
Kelsey Wang is a reporter and editor for The Dartmouth from the greater Seattle area, majoring in history and government. Outside of The D, she likes to crochet, do jigsaw puzzles and paint.
