Dear King’s community,
Over the last two months, a group of King’s students called “King’s Students in Solidarity with Palestine” has issued several versions of online demands addressed to the university. We have responded to them, including in a meeting on May 17. After that meeting a number of the demands initially made by the student group were dropped from subsequent lists of their online demands.
A further list of three demands, including some of those made by the student group, was included in an open letter from a different group called “King’s Alumni for Palestine” (posted online June 12).
As of today, the lists of both groups include demands for divestment from companies that manufacture weapons and for disclosure of the full list of companies and/or funds in which King’s has investments. The list of student demands calls for additional steps, including divestment from Israel, and for 50% + 1 student membership on the Investment Committee of the King’s Board of Governors, among others.
For those who may be unaware, in 2021 King’s released a statement adopting a Responsible Investing Policy, which is Appendix D to the broader Statement of Responsible Investment Policy and Goals. The policy states that the university “will play an active role in ensuring our managers divest entirely of investments in companies and industries that clearly do not align with the ethical principles and values of the university, such as weapons manufacturing and tobacco/vaping”.
Actions on Responsible Investing Policy
The Responsible Investing Policy predates the current conflict between Israel and Hamas, however, recent discussions about the Policy’s guidelines have been conflated with divestment from Israel. Divestment from Israel is not in accordance with the Responsible Investment Policy, the broader investment policy of which it is a part, or the fiduciary responsibility of King’s to invest donated money to achieve optimal returns. Divestment from Israel is also inconsistent with the principle, discussed below, that the university should avoid taking positions on matters beyond its direct sphere and on which there is disagreement within our community. The rationale for this principle is to ensure that the university continues to be a place in which freedom (and difference) of opinion and expression, including in the context of academic freedom, can flourish, and in which everyone can feel safe and welcomed in holding and expressing their differing opinions.
With respect to investments in weapons manufacturers, the Investment Committee met on Friday, June 14. At this meeting, the university’s asset manager (TD Asset Management) reported that the current market value of the university’s portfolio is $43,755,435. The income from this portfolio is used to fund scholarships and bursaries for diverse and deserving students and the university more generally, all in accordance with specified donor intentions. The manager also reported that some of those funds were invested in pooled equity funds, which in turn held a small number of shares in companies that might broadly be considered to be involved in weapons manufacturing (0.57%) or in the related aerospace and defense sector (a further 0.18%) although the manager advises that weapons manufacturing is not the business focus of any of these companies.
The percentage of managed funds invested in weapons manufacturing (including aerospace and defense) was at this low level (0.75% or $320,938) because the Responsible Investing Policy was being followed. Nonetheless, on behalf of the university, the committee confirmed that the amount invested in these categories must be reduced to zero. At the May 17 meeting with students, I made clear that this would happen. Further, at the June 20 Board of Governors meeting, I informed the Board that action would be taken to achieve full compliance with the responsible investing policy the Board had previously approved in 2021.
On June 24, our investment manager removed the pooled funds that held the shares of these companies from King’s investment portfolio. As a result, to the best of our knowledge, King’s prior 0.75% exposure to the shares of companies in weapons manufacturing, has now been reduced to 0%. There will be ongoing vigilance through the Investment Committee to ensure this continues to be the case and that corrective action is quickly taken if it is shown to be necessary to ensure full compliance with the policy.
Our Responsible Investing Policy—again, without any reference to Israel or Palestine or any other conflict—also commits King’s to “publishing the list of the investment assets held within the endowment funds on the university’s website at least annually, providing visibility to all stakeholders”. King’s has been remiss in not ensuring this commitment was honoured earlier and for that I take full responsibility.
At the meeting of the Investment Committee on June 14, it was confirmed that the university must comply with this provision of the Responsible Investment Policy and publish our list of holdings as soon as possible. I gave assurances to the students the university met with on May 17 that this would happen and also to the Board of Governors when it met on June 20.
TD Asset Management has now provided us with a complete list of investments as of December 31, 2023 (the most recent period for which a full list is available). This list predates removal of the pooled fund discussed above, which will now be reflected in a footnote, but is otherwise an accurate accounting of our investment portfolio as at year end. Today the list was published on the public documents page of the website (found in the footer of each website page). Again, its publication has nothing to do with Israel or Palestine, it is because the college implemented a Responsible Investing Policy containing a publication commitment in 2021.
The list of holdings shows our investments in the energy sector, including those in companies that are part of the clean energy sector and those that operate in the production and/or distribution of fossil fuels. The total amount invested in oil and gas is $1,726,158, which is 4.05% of our total portfolio. It is important to know that before the Responsible Investing Policy was implemented, the percentage invested in oil and gas was 20% or more of the total portfolio (depending on assumptions made and the time period). This reduction in our oil and gas exposure is directly responsive to three statements in the Responsible Investing Policy:
- the opening paragraph which calls for an alignment between “our investment practices with the imperative fight against climate change”;
- the provision that requires our investment managers “to divest of positions in industries and companies that do not promote responsible corporate behavior that aligns with our responsible investing policy”;
- and the provision that requires investment managers to specifically evaluate natural resources and energy companies “through an ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) lens in making their investment choices”.
University Position on Other Pro-Palestine Demands
The university has not and will not act on the other demands that have been made to express support for Palestine. The reason is the principle that I articulated at the June 19 AGM of the Alumni Association and the June 20 meeting of the Board of Governors. This principle is that it is the responsibility of the university, and the university’s president, to foster and protect freedom of opinion and expression as well as academic freedom, on matters on which there are strongly differing views within the university community that are outside the mission and responsibilities of the university and the president. This responsibility includes the role of the university in upholding the Code of Conduct which prohibits causing harm to others, university property or university operations.
It would violate these responsibilities of the university and my responsibility as president to act on the shifting and evolving demands of the group “King’s Students in Solidarity with Palestine”, or of those more recently received from the KSU, or the demand for a university statement calling for a ceasefire by “King’s Alumni for Palestine” on the basis and for the reasons on which those demands have been put forward. This is what the Board of Governors confirmed at its meeting of June 20 when it voted down three motions based on those demands. In addition, the demands generally have in multiple respects called for changes in university policies, leadership, administration and governance that are unsupported by any rationale that could be accepted as the basis for university decisions and would be contrary to the best interests of King’s.
To give any version of the statements that I have been urged to make would also violate my own rights of freedom of opinion and expression. My experience of the last nine months confirms that the conflict between Israel and Hamas is one on which there are strongly differing views within our King’s community. For what it is worth, I find myself unable to agree with much of what I have been urged to say or do from both sides of this debate. More importantly, I don’t believe it is my role to put the university on either side of the conflict or the debate. Nor do I have the expertise to do so. I would also be concerned, given the range of decisions that I have to make in the course of doing my job, that to pronounce on this conflict in ways that took sides could call my impartiality into question for anyone who had differing views.
Having said this, I have expressed an openness to students about a statement I might be willing to make, expressing shared abhorrence for all of the destruction and killing, which includes civilians, children, health care workers and journalists, that started on October 7, and our shared desire for peace and the restoration and protection of the human rights of everyone impacted by the horrific ongoing events. My experience indicates that such a statement would be unacceptable to those who are now calling on me and the university to make a statement to express support for Palestine on terms and for reasons that would be contrary to my responsibilities and those of the university.
I have received strong criticism from both sides of the debate for the email I distributed on October 24, 2023, in which I distanced the university from a KSU post that I said would be viewed as antisemitic by many and in which I also recognized the freedom of expression of the KSU. While I stand by that statement, I acknowledge the criticism that, in giving assurance that support was being provided to Jewish students in reference to the KSU post, I implied that only Jewish students needed support in light of the impact of the conflict between Israel and Hamas. For that, I apologize and emphasize that the support the university can provide was and is available to all. The university stands ready to engage in discussions about what additional supports we can provide.
My view of my responsibilities and those of the university at this moment, a moment which is heartbreaking for all of us, is that any statement I might be willing to make, or any other action that could be taken to express an opinion on the conflict between Israel and Hamas, is both unlikely to satisfy those who want the university to support the Palestinian position and at the same time likely to be damaging to the freedom of opinion and expression that is core to our mission as a university.
Sincerely,
William Lahey
President and Vice-Chancellor
