We are alarmed at the university administration’s blatant misconduct in this process, and we expect that Stanford will correct the situation immediately. We believe that the only reasonable remedy is an entirely new review for SJP’s divestment request, from which Weinstein should recuse herself.
In a statement released Tuesday afternoon, the Stanford Board of Trustees announced that the University would not divest from certain companies operating in Israel. The statement responds to a request from Stanford Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), a student group that hoped Stanford would divest from a list of companies that it claimed profited from human rights abuses in Palestine.
In a four hour long meeting on Tuesday night, the 16th Undergraduate Senate failed to pass a resolution that called on the University to divest from corporations identified as complicit in human rights abuses in Israel and Palestine.
Nine members of Senate voted in favor of the resolution; five members opposed and one abstained from voting. The resolution needed a two-thirds majority to pass. However, with the one abstention, the nine yes votes represented only 64 percent of the 14 votes cast.
This is not a column about divestment. It is not a column about Israel, or about Stanford Out of Occupied Palestine. This is, instead, a column about words. Choose your words carefully, Stanford. They determine what you say and, more importantly, who will listen. Words Matter.
Last week, anti-divestment and pro-divestment supporters took to White Plaza with both groups concentrated in separate corners of the ring. This was a missed opportunity for debate. Imagine how much more substantive and fruitful campus activism could be if we turned around and faced each other.