Brown agreed in May to review an anti-Zionist group’s demand that the school divest its endowment of assets linked to Israel.
By Dion J. Pierre, The Algemeiner
Two dozen attorneys general across the US wrote to Brown University on Monday warning that it could face “immediate and profound legal consequences” if it adopts the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, a decision its trustees will consider in October.
The communication preludes what stands to be another academic year of upheavals and tense debate over the Israel-Hamas war in American higher education, a tempest that has caused the resignations of four Ivy League presidents and set off waves of antisemitic incidents on college campuses.
Aiming to survive the storm, Brown agreed in May to review an anti-Zionist group’s demand that the school divest its endowment of assets linked to Israel.
Should that ultimately happen, the 24 state attorneys led by Arkansas’ Tim Griffin said, dozens of states across the US that have passed anti-BDS laws will sever ties with Brown.
“It may trigger the application of laws in nearly three-fourths of states prohibiting states and their instrumentalities from contracting with, investing in, or otherwise doing business with entities that discriminate against Israel, Israelis, or those who do business with either,” he explained.
“Adopting that proposal may require our states — and others — to terminate any existing relationships with Brown and those associated with it, divest from any university debt held by state pension plans and other investment vehicles, and otherwise refrain from engaging with Brown and those associated with. We therefore urge you to reject this antisemitic and unlawful proposal.”
He added, “Anti-BDS laws like Arkansas’s statute reflect the states’ interest in aggressively combating antisemitic conduct and national origin discrimination … Others have discovered to their detriment that those laws have profound financial consequences, and we would strongly counsel you to learn from those past examples.”
According to The Brown Daily Herald, Brown president Christina Paxson initially only promised anti-Zionist protesters — members of Brown Divest Coalition (BDC) who illegally occupied a section of campus in April and refused to leave until the school officials agreed to boycott Israel — a meeting with members of the Brown Corporation in exchange for their leaving campus for the summer.
However, the students pushed for more concessions and ultimately coaxed Paxson into scheduling a vote on divestment at the Corporation’s annual meeting in October.
In May, the representatives of BDC met with the Brown Corporation for preliminary talks, the Herald has reported.
Since then, they have submitted a report outlining their recommendations for divestment to the university’s Advisory Committee on University Resources Management (ACRUM).
ACRUM will, by September 30, review it and issue its own report of recommendations, which Paxson will forward to the Brown Corporation.
So far, the president has described their discussions positively, saying in a letter to the campus community that “the members of the Corporation expressed appreciation to the students for sharing their views and perspectives.”
The recent sequence of events sharply contrast with the numerous conflagrations that convulsed Brown throughout the academic year — which saw Paxson order arrests of dozens of students — and they appear to overturn Paxson’s once adamant opposition to the BDS movement.
Earlier this year, she rejected BDS even after BDC amassed inside an administrative building and vowed not to eat until she acceded to their demands.
Addressing their chosen method of protest, Paxson told them they were making their “own choices.”
Months earlier, she directed campus law enforcement to arrest over 40 students occupying University Hall.
“We consistently reject calls to use the endowment as a tool for political advocacy on contested issues,” Paxson said in a letter to the students participating in the hunger strike.
“Our campus is a place where difficult issues should be freely discussed and debated. It is not appropriate for the university to use its financial assets — which are there to support our entire community — to ‘take a side’ on issues on which thoughtful people vehemently disagree.”
According to The Brown Daily Herald, BDC has buttressed its case for BDS by citing a 2020 report by the university’s Advisory Committee on Corporate Responsibility in Investment Practices — now renamed the Advisory Committee on University Resource Management — which recommended “divesting [Brown’s] endowment from companies that enable and profit from the genocide in Gaza and the broader Israeli occupation.”
Paxson had refused to accept the report’s recommendation, arguing that it breached the body’s mission statement, but it is now the cornerstone of BDC’s case for BDS.
Thirty-five states in the US have anti-BDS laws on their books, including New York, Texas, Nevada, and Illinois. Tennessee passed one in April 2023, and in the same year, New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R) issued an executive order banning agencies from awarding contracts with companies participating in the BDS movement.
The justice system has repeatedly upheld the legality of such measures.
In February 2023, the US Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to Arkansas’ anti-BDS law, which argued that requiring contractors to confirm that they are not boycotting Israel before doing business with the University of Arkansas is unconstitutional.
Several months later, a federal appeals court dismissed a challenge to Texas’ anti-BDS law, ruling that the plaintiff who brought it lacked standing.
BDS seeks to isolate Israel from the international community as a step toward its eventual elimination.
Leaders of the movement have repeatedly stated their goal is to destroy the world’s only Jewish state.
The post ‘Antisemitic and unlawful’: 24 attorneys general warn Brown University not to adopt BDS movement appeared first on World Israel News.