One of my earliest memories of connecting with the Macalester College community was sitting on the floor of the admissions office, holding a sign reading “Fossil Free Mac.” It was my second month on campus and I was participating in a protest against the college’s fossil fuel investments.
Board of Trustees members streamed past us, averting eye contact as they entered their behind-closed-doors vote. Ultimately, the board approved a half-measure that kept the majority of their fossil fuel investments intact.
Two years later, with escalating student pressure, the board eventually agreed to full divestment. Today, students are continuing the legacy of campus organizing by demanding divestment from companies complicit in Israeli apartheid and genocide.
In 2023, a student coalition called Mac for Palestine formed in response to Israel’s escalating onslaught in Gaza. As a recent alum, one of the places I felt I could make a difference was supporting student efforts. Along with several current students, I co-authored Mac for Palestine’s divestment proposal.
We deliberately drafted this proposal in line with the international BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement’s call for a withdrawal of investments in both the state of Israel and the companies that sustain its apartheid regime.
The proposal demanded divestment from the 11 companies most complicit in Israel’s occupation, seven of which Macalester invests in through its endowment.
In support of divestment, students have organized demonstrations for over a year, including walkouts, art-builds, rallies, marches, and sit-ins. Hundreds of students participated in these protests, showing widespread, sustained support for the proposal’s demands.
However, on November 21, the Board of Trustees held another behind-closed-doors meeting. In this meeting they decided to maintain their investments in the companies outlined by the proposal, citing “logistical challenges” and “fiduciary responsibility.”
These might seem like logical reasons against divestment, however they contradict the board’s own internal guidelines. Macalester’s divestment process is unique, because unlike most colleges, there are pre-existing steps towards achieving divestment.
During Macalester’s fossil fuels divestment campaign, the board instituted a set of “investor responsibility” guidelines to inform future decisions. In these guidelines, any investment deemed a “grave social injury” can be evaluated for divestment via a student proposal.
Mac for Palestine’s divestment proposal argued that Israel and the 11 BDS companies are committing “grave social injuries,” as explicitly defined in these guidelines, including: breaking international law and depriving people of health, safety and basic human rights.
The proposal abided by these guidelines and the coalition followed all of the prerequisite steps. This included meeting with the college president, convening a Social Responsibility Committee (which recommended the proposal to the board) and attending “listening sessions” with the Board of Trustees.
Charlie, a Macalester student who co-authored the proposal, shared their optimism about how this process was going up until the board vote: “the whole process was full of green flags. All these signs pointing to the campus favoring divestment … and yet it didn’t happen.”
The board’s decision revealed a harsh truth about divestment. No matter how much support there is on campus, how strategic the proposal’s messaging is, and how clearly it abides by the existing guidelines, at the end of the day, an undemocratic, unelected body of 28 individuals has unilateral power to shape divestment policy.
Mac for Palestine shared in their “No-Vote” statement:
“This vote is not just a rejection of divestment; it is a rejection of us, the Macalester community. This decision flies in the face of everything we were taught to believe about our college — that Macalester is a place where voices are heard, where internationalism means standing up against injustice, and where our values are more than just words on paper.”
Students are particularly upset over the lack of transparency in the board’s vote. Charlie shared:
“We have no idea what the divestment conversation looked like. There’s no accountability between the board and the campus community. There are so many people on campus who have a much more direct stake in campus decisions than the board.”
Despite the frustration that many students feel with the “no” vote, organizers are taking away lessons that will inform their strategy moving forward. For one, the precise language of the Board’s response offers an inroad to a strategic shift that could achieve a substantive victory.
In their decision, the board made a logistical argument against divestment, rather than an ideological one. With this rationale, the window is open for a slightly altered divestment approach.
Instead of a divestment policy of selling existing holdings, with its logistical hurdles, the board might be more willing to approve a stipulation against making any future investments in the 11 BDS target companies.
If the board were to accept this policy, it would be a significant political victory for the divestment movement, signaling support from an institution with a nearly $1 billion endowment. It would also have a material impact, barring future investments from bolstering the 11 BDS target companies.
With mounting protests on campus — building pressure on the administration to reconsider — and a reworked proposal, this shift could be critical in developing a successful divestment proposal in the future.
Another way students are responding is by emphasizing the long-term nature of divestment organizing.
On this topic, Charlie shared: “I knew this would probably happen. Fossil Free Mac took 10 years to succeed and this decision isn’t changing my organizing philosophy of centering hope over cynicism.” Fossil fuel divestment underwent several proposal iterations before being approved, and Mac for Palestine organizers knew this would likely be the case for their campaign.
The key to long-term success might lie in institutional transformation. The day that the board published their decision, Mac for Palestine responded with an updated set of demands. Principally among these was “calling for a democratic vote on divestment,” one where every voice on campus has agency to shape the college’s divestment policy. The demands also included “a transparent, inclusive process,” as opposed to the closed-door meetings of the past.
A democratic vote showing the widespread support for divestment across students, faculty, and staff might shift the conversation. OSB, a student organizer with Mac for Palestine, shared: “Macalester students have lost confidence in the Board of Trustees to represent the interests of the campus community. This decision is helping people see the larger structural issues in college governance that need to be addressed.”
Pressuring the Macalester administration to accept the results of a democratic vote on divestment could have cascading effects beyond the Palestinian-led BDS movement. This is something that gives OSB hope in her organizing:
“The BDS movement is part of a larger struggle for justice on college campuses. Advocating for restructuring college governance through a democratic vote on divestment could set a precedent for student organizers to push for pertinent issues on campus down the road.”
In concert, these two takeaways — adjusting the proposal’s demands, while holding the horizon of institutional change — mark the next era of divestment strategy at Macalester.
This disappointing vote is not the end of Macalester’s divestment movement.
