News

Cambridge Residents Slam Council Proposal to Delay Bike Lane Construction

News

‘Gender-Affirming Slay Fest’: Harvard College QSA Hosts Annual Queer Prom

News

‘Not Being Nerds’: Harvard Students Dance to Tinashe at Yardfest

News

Wrongful Death Trial Against CAMHS Employee Over 2015 Student Suicide To Begin Tuesday

News

Cornel West, Harvard Affiliates Call for University to Divest from ‘Israeli Apartheid’ at Rally

Bennett Is Key Figure In Corporation Decision

By Arthur H. Lubow

George F. Bennett 33 is back from Europe, and the Corporation will finally vote on the Campaign GM resolutions.

The Corporation has discussed Campaign GM during the last month, but without Bennett, the Treasurer. their discussions have been inconclusive.

Most of the Corporation Fellows have relatively little background in investment policy, and the complicated book value method of accounting, which is now at last being phased out, only confuses them more.

NEWS ANALYSIS

No one in the Administration seems confident enough to challenge Bennett's judgment.

Since the Corporation-voted against Campaign GM last May, the University has devoted new energies to examining the "social responsibility" side of investment policy.

'Await'

But the results have been ambiguous.

The "Harvard and Money" report that came out in November discussed the "social responsibility" problem but did not go beyond raising the questions. It ended with the words: "We await the Austin report."

But when it arrived in March, the Austin report provided few answers.

The Austin Committee, which President Pusey created last year after the GM controversy, advocated an occasional University proxy vote "in favor of change," but emphasized that the University's major responsibility in choosing its investments is to "strive fundamentally for maximum return."

On the specific issue of proxy battles, the Austin Committee noted that the University "need not remain passive in the face of substantial evidence that the company is acting in an antisocial way," but warned against joining forces "with other large, tax-exempt organizations in policing the conduct of business corporations."

Throughout, the Austin report demonstrated the Committee's reluctance to set guidelines that the Treasurer might find too binding.

Although it advised the University to support policies which are socially responsible, the report left the nature of

the support and the nature of the responsibility of the responsibility vague enough to bear almost any interpretation.

Primary Purpose

"Our primary objective [financial gain] hasn't been changed," Bennett noted, "and we have always been concerned about social responsibility. One of the most important ingredients of investment is good management, and we don't consider a management good unless it's living up to its responsibilities to society."

But Bennett himself has been criticized for serving on the boards of directors of corporations-like the Middle South Utilities Company-that are accused of racially discriminatory hiring policies.

And Philip W. Moore, Executive Director of Campaign GM, has criticized Bennett's recent election to the Board of Directors of the Ford Motor Corporation.

Bennett denies any conflict of interest, saying that major stockholders should not disqualify themselves from serving on boards because that would "impair the private-enterprise system," and that a Treasurer learns valuable information by holding such a position and consequently improves his work.

Never Ever

Discussing the Austin report's advice, Bennett said, "They recommend that we only consider social investments when they will be equally profitable and yield social benefits as well. I've never seen investments like that."

It is safe to say that Bennett and Moore have different interpretations of the term "social responsibility." It is likely that the Corporation will pay more attention to Bennett's.

So it seems that the Corporation will vote against Campaign GM again this year. If any proposal is approved, it will be the third, which calls for GM to report annually on minority hiring, pollution control and auto safety.

But Bennett promises to be the deciding factor, and unless his opinions have changed drastically-last year he attacked Campaign GM for trying to "drive a socialist wedge into the traditional American way of doing business" -he will almost surely oppose the first two proposals to expand the Board of Directors, and probably the third, more innocuous, one as well.

And unless the Corporation has changed, they will almost surely go along with him.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Tags