"I am now confused": The Complexity of Divestment

The student protest movement against apartheid in the 1980s was arguably one of the most memorable events on campus during the latter half of the 20th century. Most people who know of the movement understandably associate it with the attack on the student-built shanties on the Green during the early hours of January 22nd, 1986. That assault, and the national news attention it raised, was a flashpoint for the Dartmouth community about whether college divestment from companies doing business in South Africa would have an impact on apartheid or not. Three and a half years later, Dartmouth had completely divested itself of business connections to companies still working within the apartheid regime. A few years after that, apartheid in South Africa was eradicated.

Although 1986 was a significant year for Dartmouth in terms of anti-apartheid protest, discussion and debate over divestment as a meaningful lever for global political change already had been occurring on campus for several years. On January 21, 1980, the Student Council passed a resolution calling on the college "to divest itself of and join the boycott of all investments in firms with commercial ties to apartheid in South Africa." Optimistically, the Student Council's resolution envisioned this process concluding by May of 1981.

Three years later, divestment had not occurred but the topic was still of interest to the Dartmouth community: on May 17th, the Tucker Foundation sponsored a debate on divestment between Dartmouth professors Hoyt Alverson (Anthropology) and John Hennessey (Economics/Tuck). According to an account published by the Dartmouth, both speakers emphasized that they were "appalled" by the white minority government in South Africa but they disagreed on the most effective way to eliminate it. Alverson argued in favor of making a statement against South African apartheid through the College's investment policies; he pointed out that the country was a product of Western investment and therefore we are responsible for its current state. He also argued that US business investment in the country had not made life better for Black residents because it was primarily capital and not labor-based. Moreover, Alverson emphasized that US investment was used as justification for the continuation of the racist system of governance. Although Dartmouth alone would likely not have a measurable effect on US or South African policy, Alverson believed that the gesture would matter if other institutions also participated.

Hennessey countered by claiming that divestment is virtue-signaling and an empty gesture. He argued that selling off Dartmouth stock in those companies would simply make those shares available for purchase by someone else who might not be as concerned with the state of South Africa: "To divest is simply to give up the right to vote and participate in company policy formulation." Instead, Hennessey recommended that the college put pressure on those companies to change their policies and on Congress to regulate those businesses more strictly. He then asked, "What is moral purity? Does it mean refusing to touch all money with any South African ties?"

In a letter written to Hoyt Alverson after the debate, Professor William Dougan (Economics) concisely summarized the two perspectives: "You do have the 'symbolism' argument in your favor, and it is formidable. Hennessey's point, which is valid, is that in opting for a symbolic gesture you are forgoing an opportunity to exert more substantive if less visible effects." At the conclusion of the debate Fred Berthold, the acting Dean of the Tucker Foundation, likely spoke for many people when he said, "About three weeks ago I was an ardent advocate of total divestment....I am now confused."

To see documents related to the debate, including the letter from Dougan to Alverson, come to Rauner and ask to see the "Debate on Divestment folder from the Records of the Vice President and Treasurer (DA-2, Box 7880, "Debate on Divestment").