Posted: 6/15/2004 11:26:19 AM EDT
Link to blog
Academia and the Second Amendment
Dale Amon (Belfast, Northern Ireland) Self defence & security
As our long time readers know, I spent much of the 1980's as an academic research scientist at Carnegie-Mellon University. Because of this, I am a member of the academic pension fund organizations called TIAA and CREF. As with any such organization, they have annual elections, proxies and oft-times one or more 'Participant Proposals' up for vote. Academia being, well, academia... such proposals are most often of the form "divest of stock in companies doing business with X" or "any business that makes Y", where X and Y belong to the set of Politically Correct causes.
So imagine my surprise when I found the following:
Resolved: No Funds shall be invested by CREF in any entity brought to its attention that publically advocates firearm control legislation or repeal of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
I voted for it, just for badness. I actually quite agree with the Board of Trustee's statement that investments should be made on a purely financial basis.
The measure will not pass... but it is the thought that counts.
|
Link to resolution. Search for "Participant Proposal II."
Excerpt:
All CREF participants can vote on the second participant proposal. Votes will not be tallied separately for each CREF account.
David I. Caplan, 247 SE 3rd Avenue, Delray Beach, FL 33483, owning 152.703 accumulation units in the CREF Stock Account, has given notice that he intends to present the following resolution at the annual meeting:
Resolved: No funds shall be invested by CREF in any entity brought to its attention that publicly advocates firearm control legislation or repeal of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
[snip]
The Board of Trustees recommends a vote AGAINST the proposal and urges all participants to read carefully the following statement before casting their vote.
Proponent has asked participants to consider a proposal that would have CREF stop investing in companies that publicly support gun control efforts. Management believes that this proposal, which would require CREF to devote resources scrutinizing the social causes advocated by portfolio companies, is contrary to the interests of CREF participants. Our position has consistently been that, except for the Social Choice Account, we will not make portfolio investment decisions based on a company’s record on social issues. We could not operate an effective investment program that gives financial concerns the highest priority if we sought to accommodate the diverse social views of our 2.25 million participants in this manner. Indeed, were CREF to make it a practice to divest itself of the securities of a single issuer because some participants object to that issuer’s social policies or practices, there would be no reason why other participants could not in turn ask that CREF divest itself of other securities for other allegedly objectionable activities. The above proposal, which promotes an agenda that we believe may be unpopular with many of our participants, underscores the merit of this long-held position.
|
Not surprised at the board's recommendation, but I am a bit surprised to see the reasons - that investment decisions should be made based solely on financial analysis & not social views.
|
