On June 22, Dartmouth Divest for Palestine submitted an addendum to their divestment proposal — originally submitted on Feb. 18, 2025 — to the College’s Advisory Committee on Investor Responsibility. Their proposal demands the College divest from six companies that allegedly “directly support Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestine.”
On May 20, 2025, following an encampment outside Parkhurst on May 1, 2025, ACIR unanimously rejected DD4P’s initial proposal. The committee, which includes nine voting alumni, faculty, staff and student members, found that the original proposal did not meet any of the five criteria for “completeness,” which must be fulfilled for ACIR to recommend proposals to College President Sian Leah Beilock and the Board of Trustees, which oversees the College’s endowment and votes on divestment proposals.
In the addendum, DD4P members wrote that they learned the College holds an Israel government bond, citing verbal communication during a visit to the Dartmouth Investment Office in March. The new proposal urges the College to end its “direct financial relationship” with Israel and divest from holdings in weapons manufacturers BAE Systems, Boeing, L3 Harris Technologies, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and RTX Corporation, whose products “are being utilized for unconscionable violence against the Palestinian people.”
College spokesperson Jana Barnello wrote in an email statement to The Dartmouth that the proposal was received and “will be evaluated in accordance with Dartmouth’s established process.” She declined to comment on the timeline of ACIR’s review.
DD4P member Peter Cooch ’07 said nearly 50 members of DD4P — including Dartmouth alumni, faculty, staff and students — worked on the original proposal and the addendum.
“We did have an opportunity, through their [ACIR’s] questions, to offer a much deeper portrayal and understanding of what’s happening in Palestine, and then how this ties in with Dartmouth history,” he said.
Cooch criticized the College’s investment process as “opaque” and said ACIR’s process is “reactive,” with many “documentational and administrative hurdles” for advocates for divestment.
“We understand ACIR’s rigor of its process,” he said. “It often feels like many of these initial investment decisions would probably not hold up to the same burden or rigor being placed on us.”
In the addendum, DD4P cited five historical examples in which the College had “chosen to align its investments with its moral commitments” by divesting from companies involved with South African apartheid in 1989, the James Bay Hydro-Quebec dam project in 1993, genocide in Sudan in 2005, the tobacco industry in 2012 and the fossil fuel industry in 2021.
“It is that tradition, and our faith in it, that animates our proposal and this response,” DD4P wrote.
In 2013, the Board of Trustees adopted the Statement on Investor Responsibility, which includes the first four criteria. The fifth criteria comes from ACIR’s charge, which was adopted in 2003. DD4P’s initial proposal was the first that ACIR reviewed under the new guidelines. The 2021 decision to divest from fossil fuel companies was made by the Dartmouth Investment Office, not the result of an official divestment proposal.
Criteria 1: “A company’s actions or inactions are clearly inconsistent with Dartmouth’s history, its values or mission.”
ACIR wrote in May 2025 that the original proposal only partially met this criteria because it did not “engage sufficiently with counterarguments asserting that Israeli government actions are consistent with Dartmouth’s history, values and/or its mission.”
In the addendum, DD4P responded to arguments that Israel is not committing genocide or crimes against humanity in the West Bank and Gaza, that Israel has no choice or is acting in self-defense and that investing in companies which “facilitate” crimes against humanity is not contrary to Dartmouth’s history, values and mission.
The addendum addressed the argument that divesting could “spark campus tensions” and potentially “undermine community bonds and encourage a tribalistic ‘us vs. them’ mentality between opposing sides on campus.” DD4P wrote that dialogue and divestment are “not mutually exclusive.”
“The College’s current approach regarding Israel-Palestine — maintaining investments in weapons manufacturers arming Israel while attempting to alleviate campus tensions through dialogue — has not healed fractured campus bonds,” the addendum reads. “Instead, the status quo has promoted a sense of administrative mistrust among large sections of the student body and faculty.” The report cited The Dartmouth’s polling on students’ comfort protesting and coverage of the faculty and student votes to censure Beilock after the arrest of 89 individuals at a pro-Palestine protest on May 1, 2024.
Divestment from the companies is “not a rejection of Jewish students, Israeli students or any community member’s identity, history, grief or safety,” DD4P wrote. Instead, it is “intrinsic” to Dartmouth’s academic mission and “ability to promote a sense of responsibility to ‘the broader world,’” quoting the College’s core values.
“Dartmouth commits to educating ‘the most promising students and prepare them for a lifetime of learning and of responsible leadership’ and promote ‘a sense of responsibility for each other and for the broader world,’” DD4P wrote. “Responsibility, in this context, entails accountability.”
DD4P rejected the argument that divestment would violate the College’s institutional restraint policy by “taking sides.”
“The proposal does not ask Dartmouth to excuse or endorse violations by any party,” DD4P wrote. “It asks Dartmouth not to invest in companies materially enabling grave human rights violations.”
Criteria 2: “All practicable shareholder rights have been exhausted in seeking to modify the company’s behavior, or it has been determined that pursuing such rights would likely be futile; and, the company has been afforded the maximum reasonable opportunity to alter its behavior and failed to do so in a manner that materially reduces such injury.”
ACIR wrote that the evidence presented in the original proposal that other means to change company behavior — such as public demonstrations against Lockheed Martin and L3 Harris Technologies and Lockheed Martin and RTX shareholder resolutions that failed by wide margin — have been exhausted was “anecdotal and not sufficient.”
“Demonstrating that efforts to change a company’s behavior are likely futile requires evidence that letters, media campaigns and similar approaches have not been successful in changing a company’s behavior or an analysis of the political or business conditions that together render efforts to change a company’s behavior futile,” ACIR wrote.
In the addendum, DD4P included more examples of unsuccessful efforts from shareholders in the six companies to stop selling arms to Israel. These instances demonstrate that it is “unrealistic” that shareholder or outside activism will change company actions, DD4P argued.
“These companies have repeatedly demonstrated that they are not responsive to calls from international organizations or human rights organizations to cease supplying Israel with arms, including the June 2024 letter by United Nations experts and public campaigns led by Amnesty International,” the addendum reads.
The addendum also argues that the College, as a shareholder, has been “historically responsible” for criteria 2. ACIR and the Board of Trustees “are better positioned to approach the companies in question because they hold direct influence over Dartmouth’s continued investment in the companies, through the ability to recommend divestment (ACIR), or to vote on divestment (Board of Trustees),” the addendum reads.
Criteria 3: “Divestment will make a material impact on correcting the company’s injurious behavior.”
To satisfy criteria 3, proposals must demonstrate “an understanding of Dartmouth’s investment exposure to companies in question and how the divestiture would result in material impact,” discuss whether the College “is in a position to influence other investors through divestment,” provide “reputable and rigorous sources to support claims of material impact” and provide rebuttals to anticipated counterarguments, according to the Statement on Investor Responsibility. ACIR wrote that the original proposal should have discussed possible “adverse impacts” from divestment, the “roles of companies’ products in conflicts beyond Israel/Palestine” and alternative methods to achieve material impact.
“Only one citation is provided in the Criterion 3 section of the proposal, and no counterarguments are addressed,” ACIR wrote. “Among other things, the proposal does not include a discussion of the resulting reduction of diversification in Dartmouth’s investment pool or limitation of access to investment managers that could occur in the event of divestment.”
DD4P wrote that it could only access information about Dartmouth’s investments during in-person meetings at the Dartmouth Investment Office, which may be requested by any member of the Dartmouth community. The information acquired at these meetings “suggested” that “any adverse financial impact would be minimal,” but DD4P “cannot provide a precise forecast” for the financial impact of divestment.
Five of the companies in the proposal — BAE Systems, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and RTX Corporation — appear in Dartmouth’s fixed income holdings. Fixed income holdings make up 6% of the $9 billion endowment, according to DD4P. L3Harris appears in Dartmouth’s global equity holdings, an asset class that accounts for approximately 23% of the endowment.
“Data gathered from these visits — including the total number of holdings in a given asset class — should be understood as an estimate,” DD4P wrote. “This limitation is not the fault of the proposal writers but a consequence of Dartmouth’s practices.”
Divestment would have an “immediate” impact on the companies and “should not be dismissed as merely symbolic,” DD4P wrote.
“We are not asking Dartmouth to divest under the premise that its holdings alone are likely to force multinational defense contractors to change course overnight,” the addendum reads. “But we are asking Dartmouth to decide whether it will continue participating financially in companies implicated in genocide, apartheid, illegal occupation and war crimes, or whether it will join a broader effort to make such complicity institutionally, reputationally and ultimately financially costly.”
Dartmouth is “especially positioned” to influence other shareholders to divest “because of its status as an elite Ivy League institution with a national reputation,” DD4P wrote.
DD4P added that companies’ involvement in other conflicts “does not erase their documented role in enabling grave human rights abuses against Palestinians.”
Criteria 4: “Divestment will not compromise Dartmouth’s ability to address the target issue through its academic work and other channels.”
ACIR wrote the original proposal did not demonstrate that it “would not hinder Dartmouth’s mission to provide a forum” for “open dialogue” regarding Israel and Palestine or “limit Dartmouth’s ability to engage in research and teaching on these issues,” including impacting funding.
“Loss of funding sources for research and teaching on the political, economic and social issues at hand and loss of funding sources for research and teaching in general could negatively impact the Dartmouth community,” ACIR wrote.
DD4P wrote in the addendum that past divestments, including from companies complicit in South African apartheid in 1989, have “proven” that divestment campaigns “can in fact be a potent opportunity for dialogue” and do not limit teaching or research on related issues.
“As past divestment campaigns demonstrate, serious consideration of divestment can deepen campus dialogue, restore trust and show students that open discussion is not an end in itself, but part of a real institutional process capable of moral reflection and principled action,” DD4P wrote.
They added that the College’s response to a pro-Palestine protest on May 1, 2024, during which 89 individuals were arrested on the Green, “sent a chilling effect throughout campus, signaling to many students, faculty, staff and alumni that advocacy on this issue would be met with hostility rather than engagement.”
DD4P argued that divestment would further academic integrity by “avoiding conflicts of interest.”
“If ACIR believes an analysis of Dartmouth’s research and teaching mission is required before divestment, then the same principle should apply to the College’s decision to invest in weapons manufacturers or Israeli state bonds in the first place,” DD4P wrote. “Those investment decisions also shape the institutional context in which research, teaching and public speech occur.”
DD4P wrote that divestment would not limit federal research funding. Even if it did, the College is “financially capable” of weathering a “funding risk,” citing an independent analysis conducted in 2024 by the Markov Processes International Transparency Lab — a financial technology firm — that found Dartmouth’s endowment is “highly resilient and relatively insulated from government-funding risk compared with its peers.”
Criteria 5: “The proposal must describe in writing, with appropriate documentation, concrete and detailed evidence of how the Dartmouth community, including students, faculty, staff and alumni, has come to consensus to support the proposal.”
ACIR interprets “consensus” to entail “more than a majority support” for the proposal among Dartmouth alumni, faculty, staff and students “but not necessarily unanimous support,” the committee wrote in May last year.
“The proposal includes no compelling evidence on the level of support for divestment among students, among faculty, among staff and among alumni,” ACIR 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.”
DD4P wrote that ACIR’s definition of “consensus” is a “de facto veto” and “procedural dead end” for divestment proposals. It was not a requirement for previous divestments, which instead considered “community animation, sustained concern and institutional salience.”
“Because ACIR’s mandate to consider ‘consensus’ is ambiguous, problematic and without clear precedent in prior divestment decisions, we ask ACIR to adopt an interpretation consistent with Dartmouth’s history,” DD4P wrote.
DD4P argued that divestment has “outspoken and sustained written support,” citing opinion articles and letters to the editor in The Dartmouth and Hanover voting to approve an anti-apartheid pledge at the town meeting on May 12.
DD4P added that it is “dangerous” to expect public signatures in favor of the proposal because “speaking out for Palestinian rights on American college campuses has generated exceptional levels of harassment, doxxing, blacklisting, discipline and selective punishment.”
“Even if Dartmouth could name an exact number, devise a method to measure it, devote substantial institutional resources to obtaining it, overcome the turnout problem that has defeated its own alumni polling efforts and guarantee the absolute anonymity needed to assure fair and safe participation, all this effort would be misplaced,” DD4P wrote. “Reducing consensus to a popularity contest is in fundamental conflict with Dartmouth’s values, and misinterprets ACIR’s role.”
Cooch said that many previous College actions have been controversial, so ACIR must adopt a “new interpretation” of “consensus” that is “consistent with Dartmouth history.”
“If you look back at coeducation, for example even in the year or so before coeducation came to Dartmouth, a majority of alumni were opposed to it,” he said. “Obviously, in hindsight we were, if anything, far too late to move there.”
Iris WeaverBell ’28 is a reporter and editor. She is from Portland, Ore., and is majoring in economics and minoring in public policy.
