As protests against Israel's bombing of Gaza continue to engulf the streets, one phrase stands out: “Disclose, divest, we will not stop, we will not rest.” On college campuses the call for university divestment from companies complicit in the deaths of over 64,900 Palestinians is a staple of student organizing.
Divestment campaigns aren’t new to college campuses. Students throughout the 20th century have demanded that their universities pull investments from military research, weapons manufacturing, tobacco, private prisons, apartheid regimes and fossil fuels. They were a key part of protests against United States military involvement in Vietnam, Iraq and now the U.S.-funded genocide in Palestine.
The goal of the divestment campaign is to pull university funds from companies with ties to the Israeli military. In a divestment referendum passed with an overwhelming 70% majority, Cornell students singled out “AE Systems, Boeing, Elbit Systems, General Dynamics, L3Harris Technologies, Leonardo, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, RTX, Technion Institute, and ThyssenKrupp” as unethical investments.
These specific companies were chosen for their military involvement in the genocide. Lockheed Martin fighter jets fill the Israeli Air Force, capable of dropping over 18,000 pounds of bombs at a time. From Elbit Systems and Caterpillar Inc., Israel obtains weaponry used to bulldoze Palestinian homes, schools and mosques. The list goes on.
The referendum further argued that the Cornell Board of Trustees itself is committed to divestment from “morally reprehensible” companies and that the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories found that “the threshold indicating that Israel has committed genocide has been met.” While a ceasefire is currently in place, Israel has violated it 80 times killing nearly 100 Palestinians and restricting humanitarian aid from entering Gaza. Thus, any company with military ties to Israel falls into the morally reprehensible category that Cornell administration set.
The University’s response to the student referendum is beyond disappointing. The letter begins by stating, “The loss of so many innocent lives, starting with the horrific terrorist attacks on October 7 and continuing to today with the war in Gaza,” which already ignores the complexities of the settler-colonial occupation that Palestine has been experiencing for nearly 80 years.
The response then makes the argument that it’s not the place of an educational institution to “make a statement about this complex political issue.” Yet, by supporting companies whose weapons are used to murder children in Gaza, Cornell is already making a choice. The administration says they do not wish to “chill the voices of those Cornellians who disagree” with a “vote on the referendum was far from unanimous.” However, by doing nothing Cornell is making an active choice to alienate the vast majority of their students who feel morally anguished that their tuition funds bombs and bloodshed.
Further, institutions of higher education have divested from “morally reprehensible” companies before. Over 100 universities have begun divesting from fossil fuels, taking decisive action against the destructive threat of climate change. The Board of Trustees at Boston University found that the circumstances for divestment “exist only when (i) the degree of social harm caused by the actions of the firms in the asset class is clearly unacceptable.” If colleges can take a moral stance on climate change, they can do so on genocide.
Furthermore, of the colleges that divested from fossil fuels, almost all have experienced neutral to positive financial effects. Divestment from companies that supply Israel could similarly open the doors to more productive economic investments.
The other common argument against divestment is that it could never threaten the funds of these immense corporations and thus cause insignificant policy changes. However, the move to divest from fossil fuels managed to generate some financial impact to non-renewable energy companies as other organizations pulled out investments. If high profile universities such as Cornell take a moral stance and divest from genocide, enough organizations will follow to have an impact.
Even if the initial act of divestment doesn't financially affect these companies, universities can still turn public opinion away from weapons manufacturers supplying Israel. For example, universities divesting from companies complicit in South African apartheid did so to protect their institution’s moral image and foster discussion on the immorality of the apartheid regime. Similarly, universities can shift the discourse to questioning the deplorable ethics of Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc. The country’s eyes are on its universities. A moral stance against genocide is just as impactful as a financial one.
Pulling investments away from weapons manufacturers is also not the only way to guide the University's moral compass. In Fall 2024, Cornell students attended a career fair at the The Statler Hotel, protesting the presence of defense contractors. As a result, Boeing and L3Harris pulled out of this year’s career fair.
In the absence of divestment, Cornell students have proven to the world that companies complicit in genocide are not welcome to promote on campus.
The Cornell Daily Sun is interested in publishing a broad and diverse set of content from the Cornell and greater Ithaca community. We want to hear what you have to say about this topic or any of our pieces. Here are some guidelines on how to submit. And here’s our email: associate-editor@cornellsun.com.
Mina Petrova '29 is a Freshman in the College of Arts & Sciences studying English, History, and Government. Her fortnightly column ‘North Star’ studies the past and critiques the present, focusing on politics, protests and activism that strive toward a more equitable future. She can be reached at mpetrova@cornellsun.com.
