Given the fact that investment firms such as Moody’s have a negative outlook on American institutions of higher learning, most administrators would probably find it prudent to have profitable firms within their stock portfolios.
And with gun and and ammunition purchases reaching record levels, stocks from weapons manufacturers should be included. However, that sensible approach is not being taken by Princeton:
When it comes to the politicization of university endowments, every liberal cause eventually has its day in the sun.
For example, liberals love to argue for divesting from things like tobacco stocks, oil stocks, and most of all, any stock that has anything at all to do with Israel.
These days, the prevailing liberal cause du jour is gun control. So you can guess what the latest cries of endowment divestment at Princeton are about:
Princeton University administrators are considering divesting from companies involved in the manufacture and sale of certain firearms, a spokesperson for the Ivy League school said on Tuesday…
“Questions about divesting come up periodically,” said Martin Mbugua, spokesperson for Princeton University. “This issue will be taken up by the resources committee whose job it is to address such matters.”
…The Daily Princetonian, Princeton’s official school newspaper, printed select excerpts from the petition.
“We call upon Princeton University to follow suit, by renouncing current or future investments in companies involved in the manufacture and distribution of multiple, rapid-firing semiautomatic assault weapons, and the bullets that equip them,” it said, according to the Princetonian…
The petition was put together by music professor Simon Morrison, Slavic professor Caryl Emerson, and French professor Marie-Helene Huet, who concede they are not “experts in matters related to the interpretation of the constitution” in the document.
Experts? We are surprised when members of the academic elite even acknowledge the existence of the U.S. Constitution.
Read the full story at Campus Reform.