Senate does not pass divestment resolution

Tuesday's meeting saw over 400 people pack into the Oak Room in Tresidder. (NICK SALAZAAR/The Stanford Daily)

Tuesday’s meeting saw over 400 people pack into the Oak Room in Tresidder.
(NICK SALAZAR/The Stanford Daily)

In a four-hour-long meeting on Tuesday night, the 16th Undergraduate Senate did not pass a resolution that called on the University to divest from corporations identified as complicit in human rights abuses in Israel and Palestine.

Nine members of Senate voted in favor of the resolution; five members opposed and one abstained from voting. The resolution needed a two-thirds majority to pass. However, with the one abstention, the nine yes votes represented only 64 percent of the 14 votes cast.

Approximately 400 students, professors and anyone with a Stanford ID crowded into the Oak Room in Tresidder to attend what one ASSU Senator called in passing “the most important ASSU meeting of the year.” Most in attendance found seats, while others chose to watch the live stream or follow the conversation on Twitter via #StanfordDivest.

“This was an extraordinarily difficult decision,” said Ben Holston ’15, who voted no via his proxy, in a statement read at the end of this week’s meeting. “We are all Stanford students. Thank you for everyone who made their voice heard today.”

ASSU Senator John-Lancaster Finley ’16 voted yes after a meeting with Professor Clayborne Carson, the founding director of Stanford’s Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute.

“I asked myself that if I vote no, am I condoning the current course of action? Absolutely yes,” Finley said after the vote.

Stanford Out of Occupied Palestine (SOOP), the group that brought the petition to the Senate, said in a press release that they are recognizing the vote as a victory due to the majority. Past votes on the issue of divestment did not receive such a majority.

Discussion of the resolution opened with speeches from SOOP and then from Coalition for Peace, which opposed the resolution. Members of each group, in addition to unaffiliated Stanford students, were each given two minutes to comment on the language of the bill at hand. Some spoke more than once after senators surrendered their discussion time to these speakers. The Senate did not allow graduate students to speak at the meeting.

“Growing up as the daughter of two Palestinian refugees, I’ve witnessed the pain associated with being expelled from one’s home — the pain of blatant and institutional discrimination in the nations they fled to that impeded access to jobs, education and other resources,” Sarah Salameh ’16 said.  “With my family scattered around the globe, what keeps us unifies is the same source, the same home.”

Some students used their time to speak about the impact that divestment talks had on campus culture. Two RAs described how their residents felt uncomfortable with the campus culture surrounding the campaign: Specifically, one resident voiced fear that being seen opposing divestment would lead them to be seen as rejecting human rights. At the same time, SOOP claims that it has addressed these fears.

“SOOP as a coalition really is concerned about students who felt threatened by the bill,” said Manny Thompson ’15, a member of SOOP. “We are trying to be transparent; we are trying to work with all communities.”

SOOP recognizes itself as a coalition of 19 student groups without any formal leadership structure. The petition they circulated prior to the meeting garnered over 1,600 student signatures in support of divestment.

Meanwhile, Coalition for Peace is a coalition of Stanford students who oppose this particular divestment campaign on the grounds that it contains inflammatory and inaccurate information, is harmful to future peace agreements and marginalizes and divides students.

“As international students, we are really leaders of whatever country we come from, and so the Stanford community would be throwing [away] an opportunity to have an impact on this conflict in the Middle East by divesting and creating a situation that is contentious among community members, either marginalizing Jewish students or Palestinian students in either way,” said Margreth Mpossi ’15, a student from Tanzania and a member of the Coalition for Peace.

One question that lacked a definitive answer was whether Stanford is in fact investing in many companies named in the bill. Stanford Review writer Elliot Kaufman ’18 told The Daily that he found no evidence that Stanford invested in any of the cited companies, except Eaton Corp and Raytheon, after his research into every SEC record filed by Stanford’s endowment going back to 2005. However, Stanford’s endowment also is invested in mutual funds, some of which may have investments in the companies in question.

One motion, brought by Nick Ahamed ’15, a Daily staffer, called for tabling the resolution until the spring ballot for a student vote, which was met with groans from the audience. That motion was ultimately tabled.

After the votes were tallied, finger-pointing and shouting erupted from a few individuals, but the majority of those in attendance remained silent. One individual was escorted from the room.

Following the vote, the ASSU Senate offered CAPS services to students interested.

“This has been hard for everyone. The question now is how we maintain our community,” said Sally Dickson, Associate Vice Provost for Student Affairs, who moderated the discussion.

Contact Alexis Garduno at agarduno ‘at’ stanford.edu.

  • CheckYourIgnorance

    I won’t deny it, nor will I affirm it because I haven’t been exposed to every piece of literature surrounding it. I do know, however, that the language in the resolution put forth explicitly distanced itself from the BDS movement and was specific to the Stanford community. Again, which you are not a part of. The problem (and you are an embodiment of that problem) is that people who aren’t a member of the community, who have no stakes in what our university does, who do not resemble our student body, feel that their particular view points have more weight than the students who go here. Perception means something, yes, but at the end of the day you are not one of us.

  • CheckYourIgnorance

    The point still stands that you proved…YOU HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR CAMPUS OR OUR COMMUNITY. And no couth.

  • CheckYourIgnorance

    You don’t go here, but I’ll still respond to your post. When you think of helping someone, are you thinking of how you’re being perceived or are you thinking “that person needs help”? We, as students, don’t want to be involved. It’s like if I say, “I love my mom”. Though I only referred to my mom, someone could always think “He must hate his dad…” but do I (or anyone) entertain that thought? If Stanford divests, then some of the World’s (the World) more gifted and talented students chose to divest. That has power, yes. But what you think of that is based on what you think of Stanford: a source of evil, elitist snobs who aren’t in tact with global issues or a place that produces eloquent artists, civil rights advocates, doctors, and politicians (not all of whom I agree with, but hey). What we’re doing is democracy, maybe even a flawed one. The favor for divestment was 64%…with one abstention.

  • James Meeker

    We’re talking about today; right now. Right now, these are the positions of the Palies. Right now. Do you condemn it, or will you keep trying to avoid the truth?

  • CheckYourIgnorance

    You STILLLL didn’t acknowledge anything that I already put forth about the poll. Did you even read it??? You know what. What college did you attend. We need to all know where not to send our children. Or maybe the entire education system failed you…I can’t tell. You can’t lump an ENTIRE freaking people together and blame them for something. That’s what Hitler did, don’t you know?

  • James Meeker

    You put nothing forth about the poll. Nobody disputed the findings. The simple fact is that you can’t handle the truth. Hitler didn’t have a majority of Germans and look what he did. The percentages of Palies who hold these views are much higher than the Germans back then.

  • maddogsfavsnpiks

    Thanks for the note of appreciation.
    You seem to be tireless in your role as divestment and SOOP supporter/defender. My guess is that the group is lucky to have someone so dedicated, informative and committed. Hopefully it’s a rewarding, enlightening experience for you and all of your comrades.
    Based on my experience and involvement in actively opposing the Viet Nam war in the 60s and 70s, the genocide and oppression of native first peoples on this continent (ongoing), racism (ongoing), environmental devastation (ongoing), and the “interventions”, “regime changes”, and the many wars of US aggression and imperialism (ongoing), i know the struggle can be exhausting and frustrating.
    As mentioned previously, i’ve read all the comments here, including your Dr.MLK jr response. One of my fav speeches of his, was the “Viet Nam, Breaking the Silence” speech, given in New York, about a year
    (i think ?) before he was assassinated by one of our own home-grown terrorists.
    i’m not always judiciously diligent in checking the nature and background of my sources, but i fully understand the *vital importance* of that practice.
    i also am wondering if your handle “CheckYourIgnorance” might be less confrontational, and thus more effective in winning converts and sympathizers, if you changed it to “CheckYourSources” ? — just a thought.
    On really controversial subjects i usually try to read viewpoints from both sides, or all sides when applicable. That way i hope to be able to sift thru the inevitable biases of views steeped in traditional habits and injustices, not to mention the insidious propaganda of those with the “whip hand”.
    The Mountain Meadows Massacre history i read is written by Sally Denton. i chose that one *for starters* because it seemed to be the most recent account, and includes some recent discoveries. Altho i’m not completely sold on her overall objectivity, it seemed like a good place to start on that subject.
    On other subjects, for me at least, reading the deep observations, the clarity of perception from people like Chomsky, Zinn, Marcuse, Brecht, Isabel Allende, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Martin Espada, Michael Harper, just to name a few, always helps to renew vigor and purpose of effort.
    Not being as informed as i’d like on the subject, i’m going to embark on a more detailed examination of middle east history soon, prob’ly starting with an examination of more ancient beginnings, “The Arabs in History” by Bernard Lewis, tho i realize it doesn’t cover more recent history, and i’ve noted the author is British. And i just happened to have it lying around (a hand-me-down from mother’s library no doubt) So, i’d certainly consider others as well if you have any specific suggestions/recommendations.
    Good luck, and Peace.

  • CheckYourIgnorance

    Honestly, I don’t think saying anything more will result in anything. People who read this (God bless them for they have the patience of angels) are presented with both of our views fairly well, I think. So, I’m going to disengage. Peace and Love.

  • maddogsfavsnpiks

    Mr Meeker,
    Please check your facts and your gross, erroneous notions of “truth”.
    In the March 5, 1933 elections, Hitler’s party (NSDAP) received 44% of the vote AND being in coalition with his Nationalist Party (DNVP) allies, including Hugenburg and Field Marshall von Hindenburg, who received 8% of the vote, they combined for a 52% majority.
    So he indeed did have a majority. He even had support from Jewish National Union !
    Furthermore, Hitler and von Hindenburg met with major industrialists and German capitalists (I.G.Farben, Krupp, Schacht, and some 25 others), receiving their blessings AND funding.
    Then, in the wake of the Reichstag fire, Hitler went to the German Parliament, meeting in Berlin’s Kroll Opera House, for passage of the so-called “The Enabling Act”, requiring a 2/3 majority for passage, which would give him “emergency” and dictatorial powers. Of the eleven parties with reps in the parliament, only the German Socialist Party (SPD) voted against it and thus it passed 441-94… that’s a SUPER MAJORITY, exceeding 82% !, by any form of reckoning.
    i haven’t seen here or anywhere that any Stanford group within the SOOP coalition has said it condones the human and civil rights abuses mentioned in the Pew Poll.
    i agree those abuses should and must be addressed.
    But the specific issue here is oppression of the Palestinian people, and whether or not Stanford University should divest from corporations profiting from, and in relation to that oppression. Period.
    Furthermore, calling the SOOP group “Jihadis” is a typical diversionary and manipulative, propagandistic tactic, often similarly employed by the likes of Hitler, Goring and Goebbels to divert attention from specific abuses the Nazis were accused of. But in this case, the oppression opposed by the SOOP coalition, is substantial encroachment on and dispossession of land and rights belonging to the Palestinians.

  • James Meeker

    The Palies don’t believe in either, as per the Pew poll. They believe in misogyny, racism, homophobia, and discrimination- even violence, against those who don’t believe like they do.

    When will you begin boycotting them?

  • James Meeker

    My facts are on-target. They received a minority of the vote; as you yourself admit. Again, see these numbers:

    89% of Muslim Palestinians want Sharia (Islamic law) to be “the official law of the land” (p. 9)

    40% of Muslim Palestinians support suicide bombings or other forms of violence against civilians in the name of Islam (Pp. 10, 70)

    48% of Muslim Palestinians see polygamy as morally acceptable (p. 11)

    51% of Muslim Palestinians believe that there is only one correct interpretation of Sharia (p. 44)

    95% of Muslim Palestinians who pray several times a day and 68% who pray less often believe that Sharia should be the law of the land (p. 47)

    44% of Muslim Palestinians believe that Sharia must be enforced upon non-Muslims as well (p.48)

    76% of Muslim “Palestinians” who say Sharia should be the law of the land, favor corporal punishment, like cutting off hands for theft, etc. (p.52)

    84% of Muslim Palestinians who say Sharia should be the law of the land, favor stoning as a punishment for adultery (p.54)

    66% of Muslim Palestinians who say Sharia should be the law of the land, support the death penalty for one leaving Islam (p. 55)

    40% of Muslim Palestinians prefer a strong leader over democracy (p. 60)

    72% of Muslim Palestinians believe that religious leaders should have either a large influence or some influence in politics (p. 64)

    65% of Muslim Palestinians say that religious parties are either better or the same as secular parties. Only 29% say that they are worse (p. 66)

    92% of Muslim Palestinians say that drinking alcohol is immoral (p. 76)

    87% of Muslim Palestinians say that a woman must always obey her husband (p. 93)

    33% of Muslim Palestinians say that a woman should be able to divorce her husband (p. 94)

    43% of Muslim Palestinians say that sons and daughters should have equal inheritance rights (p. 95)

    44% of Muslim Palestinian males believe that it is a woman’s right to decide whether to wear a veil (p. 97)

    89% of Muslim Palestinians believe that only Islam leads to salvation (p. 110)

    82% of Muslim Palestinians believe that it is a religious duty to convert others to Islam (p. 112)

  • maddogsfavsnpiks

    Mr Meeker writes meekly : “My facts are on-target. They received a minority of the vote; as you yourself admit.”

    i “admit” nothing of the sort, you liar… You didn’t even hit the broadside of your barn. Look up the word “minority” which means, and i quote from Webster, “The smaller number”.
    Obviously you haven’t done your homework.

    In reality, which seems to escape you, Hitler’s NSDAP got the **MOST** of any party, 44%, also known as a plurality. By definition “the MOST” cannot be “the smaller”…
    Duh ! Go back to SCHOOL.

    Furthermore, in his alliance with the Nationalists and von Hindenburg et al, Hitler formed a MAJORITY 52% that gave him the power to RULE..

    ..which was your original point, so you get an “F”, for forgetting and for playing the FOOL.

    And then in the German Parliament, immediately following, he secured a 441-94, 82+% SUPER MAJORITY, which gave him supreme and dictatorial powers, can’t you read ?
    Now go back to roping steers ‘n beers ‘n the rest of your BULL.

  • James Meeker

    Mr. Meeker quotes a Pew poll of what the Palies think, and it’s racist, misogynist, violent, and disgusting. In many cases, it is a large majority of them too. This is much more than the minority of Germans who voted for the Nazi party. A plurality is not a majority.

    Palies: majority
    Germans: minority

  • maddogsfavsnpiks

    In March 1933, the NSDAP 44% plurality combined with the DNVP 8% *minority* to create a pro-Hitler, pro-Nazi 52% MAJORITY, giving Hitler the mandate to rule by German democratic, parliamentary law.
    Hitler then presented his “Enabling Act” to the democratically elected German Parliament and 441 representatives, a vast 82+% MAJORITY voted YEA, giving Hitler dictatorial powers.
    (Of the 11 parties with reps in the German Parliament, ONLY the socialists voted Nay).
    ***
    The Pew Poll indeed demonstrates disgusting, racist, misogynist attitudes illustrating an atmosphere of human and civil rights abuses, BUT it is NOT the same as an election and a VOTE by a MAJORITY leading to imperialist invasions, genocide, holocaust, and world wide bloodshed of unprecedented levels.
    ***
    Should we work to change inequalities and end abuses inside Palestine ?
    — Of course. Absolutely NO ONE here denies that.
    Does your continued use of the term “Palies” contribute to, or further a dialogue on human rights abuses with the Palestinians ?
    — No
    Did Israel boycott the UN Conference on Human Rights in Durban ?
    — Yes
    Does $80 Billion in sales and grants of weapons, military equipment and services from the US to Saudi Arabia (another major human rights abuser) from 1950-2006 contribute to Peace in the Mideast ?
    — No
    Does $53.6 Billion in military aid and grants from the US to Israel from 1949-2007 contribute to Peace in the Mideast ?
    — No
    Is the US weapons industry (Ratheon, LockheedMartin, NorthrupGrumman, Honeywell, Halliburton, Textron, General Dynamics, General Electric, etc) making out like bandits by manipulating Israel AND the Arabs for the sake of obscene profits ?
    — Yes
    When the greed for oil and the need for control of related strategic advantage fades, will the corporate-sponsored US government drop support for Israel like a political hot potato ?
    — Bank on it
    Are the Palestinians likely to change attitudes and stop abuses while being dispossessed, oppressed and bombed by Israel ?
    — No
    Has the UN and the EU condemned Israel for use of excessive and disproportionate force in the Gaza strip ?
    — Yes
    Did the United Nations repeatedly vote, by overwhelming MAJORITY margins, sanctions against Israel for its actions ?
    — Yes
    ***
    “The most difficult subject can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, 1897

  • James Meeker

    NSDAP: 44% = minority

    Only afterwards did they form a coalition to make a majority.

    Compare that to the MAJORITY of Palies who support violence, misogyny, racism, and so on. Overwhelming majority.

    Do you condemn it?

  • maddogsfavsnpiks

    You’re wrong Meeker. They formed their coalition in January, following the resignations of Schleicher and Papen, when von Hindenburg, as President, appointed Hitler Chancellor, pending upcoming elections in March.
    Please, do some research for once, before opening your mouth, spewing your lies and typing your false impressions.
    Also, if you read my comments you know where i stand, but since you haven’t what’s the point of continually repeating myself ?
    You also might want to note, that many US diplomats and corporate leaders were supportive of Hitler’s ascendency. Prescott Bush, GW’s grandfather, board-member of Brown Brother’s bank arranged for loans Hitler needed for re-arming Germany; Joseph Kennedy, ambassador to England said, “We can work with this guy”; Time magazine made him “Man of the Year”, Henry Ford and national hero Charles Lindburg were big fans; and shortly after Hitler’s ascendency the fledgling IBM corporation began doing the dirty work of identifying Jews in Germany and eventually all throughout Europe, which was pivotal to Hitler’s goal of Jewish extermination.
    Speaking of comparisons, you should compare the US election for President, in 2000, featuring your home state corporate candidate, George Bush Jr.
    In comparison to Hitler, Bush got a plurality (albeit after much vote-counting corruption in his brother’s state of Florida) and never bothered with forming a majority, yet still ruled, ultimately leading to the invasion of Iraq, which in turn lead to the deaths of at least a million or more, and the ongoing Mideast horror show…
    But, what the hey, the powerful few at the head of Raytheon, LockheedMartin, Halliburton, NorthropGrumman, Honeywell, GeneralDynamics, Textron, GeneralElectric, AlliantTechSystems and many more, are makin’ out like bandits off the blood, gore and tears of the many…
    You guys from Texas, land of sunshine, sunflowers and sons of beeches, are really sumpin’, ain’tcha !

  • James Meeker

    July 1932: The NSDAP won 37.27% of the votes

    November 1932: The NSDAP won 33.09% of the votes

    March 1933: The NSDAP won 43.91% of the votes

    November 1933: The NSDAP won 92.11% of the votes- but: Adolf Hitler had already seized dictatorial powers with the passage of the Enabling Act. All opposition parties had been banned, and voters were presented with a single list containing Nazis and 22 non-party “guests” of the Nazi Party. Such delegates, who included the likes of Alfred Hugenberg, still fully supported the Hitler regime. Voters were threatened with reprisals if they failed to vote or dared to vote no.

  • maddogsfavsnpiks

    Correction to the comment below in which i mis-spoke, Gore got a plurality in 2000 (roughly 47.9%) and Bush got a minority (roughly 47.8%) and yet Bush, who never formed a majority, still ruled… etc.. leading to the rest of the horrors that follow..

  • maddogsfavsnpiks

    Eggs Ackley – and Hugenberg was previously the candidate for the Nationalist party which formed the coalition with the NSDAP forming the ruling coalition in the March 1933 elections … just as i previously stated.

  • James Meeker

    The horrors were for the jihadis.

    But you’re changing the subject. I understand.

  • James Meeker

    And again, the Nazis were a minority- unlike the radical views of the Fakestinians; which includes an majority.

  • maddogsfavsnpiks

    The problem is, you don’t…

  • James Meeker

    Oh, I do.

  • maddogsfavsnpiks

    remember tho, don’t forget, it was Gore who got the plurality and Bush the minority, yet he didn’t let that didn’t stop him..