I need to get a lanyard for my i.d. badge, so I went to the Duke University home page to check the online store. At the home page, I noticed a link to a recent article about Duke's new President Dick Broadhead. Specifically, the article notes that Broadhead renewed his predecessor's stance that Duke will not divest itself from "companies with military ties to Israel." (I'm not sure what the exact parameters of "military ties" are, especially in this day of private military contracting.)

The article notes that Duke did divest from South Africa during the apartheid era there. But the school's position is that (a) divestment is a "blunt intsrument" and (b) there isn't a consensus, like there was in South Africa, about where all the fault lies in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflicts.

This makes sense to me. I think Duke would be clearly morally wrong to invest in, say, Nigerian Slavery Futures, Inc. or something. I don't think Duke has a moral obligation to invest only in the "best" or "most noble" enterprises, though. I think it can decide that, while a certain company might not be a perfect operation, it's not outright evil and the return on the investment benefits the greater good (not to mention the influence on corporate governance that a major shareholder like a university endowment might exert). For instance, the Duke Endowment was for years the majority shareholder of Duke Power. And although the Endowment sold off a lot of that stock (probably in contravention of James Duke's trust indenture), Duke Energy stock is still the Endowment's biggest asset. Anyway, my point is just that even if Duke Energy isn't the world's greatest corporate citizen, it's not inherently evil such that Duke should feel complicit in any of its misdeeds. (Note also I'm just using this as an example; I don't have any evidence of any misdeeds by Duke Energy at all. And remember of course that Duke got its name, and a pile of money, from the Dukes of the American Tobacco Company fortune. I wonder if the creation of a "Marlboro University" today would be greeted with much acclaim.)

I think the situation in Israel is comparable, although on a much more tragic scale. While I unequivocally and unhesitatingly denounce suicide bombings and other forms of terrorism, I don't think the Israeli government has been completely blameless. (I'm not an expert on the conflict, and I don't want to get into it here. I don't think there's any point in trying to argue with someone who thinks that either side is 100% pure or 100% to blame in this. It can't be that simple.) So, even though I think Duke could have chosen to take sides in this problem, I think doing so would have been a bad idea. For one thing, some Palestinians are doing bad things, and I would hate for Duke's choice to be seen as a reward for these actions. Second, divestment wouldn't solve anything, and probably wouldn't even be noticed. On the other hand, maintaining stock in these companies allows Duke to at least have a voice at the shareholders' meeting, if nothing else. In the event that a company does something particularly bad, Duke could use the threat of divestment as a means of urging the company to change its policies. (There's some game theory here, though, because the company could call Duke's hand, and once divested, Duke loses all power over the company.)

I'm way off-topic and have rambled far too much. All I really wanted to say is that I think Duke did the right thing by refusing to divest here.

There's an interesting postscript to this story. President Broadhead also announced that he was allowing the Palestinian Solidarity Movement to hold a conference at Duke "despite objections from some Jewish groups who say PSM endorses terrorism and the elimination of Israel." PSM denies those charges, by the way.

Broadhead said that the decision was "easy," because he feels the school should be promoting the free exchange of ideas rather than suppressing them. An objector said that the PSM's presence could lead to anti-Semitic acts, but Broadhead refused to allow a heckler's veto. (See more here.) I'm sure the school will respond to any anti-Semitic acts that do occur, but it won't impose a prior restraint.

This is notable because Duke is a private university to which the First Amendment doesn't apply. But the news article says that last year's PSM conference was scheduled at Rutgers, the state university of New Jersey. (Please, no jokes about Duke being the University of New Jersey at Durham; it's tired.) Rutgers, though, cancelled the event. I don't know if the PSM folks or Rutgers students brought any First Amendment challenges to this action. But I'm glad to see Duke standing up for principles of free speech even when it doesn't have to.