Erin Sanehira ‘11 

Since investments made by the University of Rochester are matters of business and economic stability, there will always be decisions of controversial nature. Regardless of whether the controversy may arise in the domain of ethics or of financial risk, it is the responsibility of the Investment Committee to decide how and where to allocate University’s dollars. In ascertaining the best return, there will need to be a business-centered approach. Thus, it should be at the discretion of the Investment Committee to release information on the companies they invest in. More…Less…

Amy Roth ‘11

The companies in which UR invests should not be a secret. I feel that we all contribute to the ongoing welfare of this university and so deserve to have access to that information as a rule of thumb. However, I can imagine circumstances in which the nature of the investment could be sensitive for a number of reasons. With this in mind, I feel that UR should be at liberty to use discretion in releasing investment information but should provide as much as possible.

Charles Genese ‘12

In the words of Sir Francis Bacon, “scientia potentia est,” or “knowledge is power.” Indeed, information throughout history has been used to install or dethrone, inspire or dishearten and build or collapse. In the wake of the SDS demands from the University, it is becoming obvious that divulging the truth about university investments could prove both enlightening and damaging. As the University of Rochester is a private university, it retains a certain right to remain discreet and keep its investment records confidential. However, such would be unethical and unreasonable. Consider a jar of store-bought pasta sauce. The average consumer could easily find the nutritional content as well as the expiration date, ingredients, manufacturer and price. This information would collectively affect the decision of the consumer whether to purchase the product or not. In the same sense, exposure of university investment policies could not only affect the decisions of students to attend, researchers to study and faculty to work, but also affect the decisions of benefactors who help maintain the University’s endowment. Certainly there would be backlash from select groups and individuals for investment in companies involved in oil, munitions and military technology, but those adding money and prestige to the University have a right to know where their own investments are going. To refuse admission is to unrightfully pass off as confidential and potentially damaging what should ultimately be a matter of public record open to civil debate and examination. Though it is unlikely that the University would ever fully acknowledge all of its investments, minimal transparency, especially in the face of current pressure, is necessary to maintain an environment that is friendly to discourse and open to reality. At a major research university, advancing public knowledge is the only acceptable policy.

Ben Sabari ‘10

There should be greater transparency and accountability. As I understand it, the University will not publish a list of companies it is investing in, but you can ask the administration whether or not they are investing in a specific company and they will inform you. It does seem a little backwards, but to my knowledge the information is not completely confidential. I have discussed this topic with friends in light of the recent SDS occupation of Goergen where one of the group’s demands was for the University to divest from weapon’s manufacturers. If this is a concern to students at UR and if the University and the Board of Trustees are willing to cooperate, then the best solution seems to be the formation of a panel that oversees the University’s investments. The panel could be composed of elected appointees selected from the faculty, student body, and community who’s function would be to oversee the different aspects and concerns of investing money, i.e. economic, ethical, social, moral, etc.

Emily Grzybowski ‘11

If you’re interested in knowing what companies the University invests in, it’s available to you. Yes, it’s somewhat unnecessarily difficult to obtain this information, but it is attainable. One must submit a list of companies, and the University will respond by letting you know which of those companies it invests in. Though this isn’t quite as forward as posting a list on the Internet or including a list in an Admissions packet, it does provide the information to those who seriously want it. More…Less…

Rachel Hock ‘09

I think that the University should adopt a policy of transparency in all matters of spending and investment. Students and their families pay tens of thousands of dollars in tuition and should be given access to records of where that money goes; likewise for alumni, whom the University relies on for donations in its capital campaigns. These records should also be accessible to the Rochester community because the University is such an influential force in the city. Finally, transparency would show that the University has nothing to hide, which could obviate any scandal that might arise due to competing interests.

Jess King ‘10

I feel like we deserve to know where all of the money the school has is going — about $47,000 per year is not only more than the median household income, it’s far from being chump change. Not only are my parents investing in me to be a good student and be successful enough to support them in their old age (despite being the youngest of four), they’re investing in the school to do a good job in educating me. I also don’t know what the cons of making it public would be. If anything, knowing where the money goes would make me feel much more comfortable about giving to the school as an alum and less bitchy about it as a student (assuming they’re not pissing it away on bullshit investments). I think overall it’s their obligation to let us know where our money is going. They tell us when they “invest” in a professor’s research because they take pride in it. If they can’t do that with their other investments, then they shouldn’t be making them.

Maya Dukmasova ‘11

It seems that when one decides to attend a private university, it’s like buying a product. You buy into an image, a degree program, a major, a researching style, a crowd and eventually you get your receipt: a crisp diploma. When you buy any other type of product, you have the right to know all the details before making your purchase. If you don’t like the components of your toothpaste, you’re free not to buy it, but the information is there for your informed decision-making. It makes sense that before buying into a university, students should be able to assess all of its components (such as the companies it invests in or the names of its trustees). The matter has nothing to do with students’ participation in the University’s investment decisions, but simply a disclosure of information. Let’s face it, most of us probably would never even care to look at a list of companies our University invests in before deciding to come here, but for those who find this information pertinent to their “product purchase,” the secrecy of said list could be unnerving. I would imagine that such transparency could only benefit the University; it would easily avoid any accusation of shady activity on the part of perspective and current students. I understand that this list is kept undisclosed so that business can run more smoothly, but this also begs the question of whether or not our school invests in controversial companies. Knowledge is power.