The following is an open letter and reflects the authors’ views alone. For information on how to submit a piece to the Opinion section, click here.
Princeton’s investments and its professed values are in conflict with each other: investment in arms manufacturers does not help humanity.
The administration has failed to uphold Princeton’s moral standards that the Princeton Israeli Apartheid Divest (PIAD) campaign has sought to compel. So it is up to the student body to act and restore these standards. Our education cannot be stained with the blood of millions of people across the world. The tuition we pay, the campus we live in, and the lessons we are taught should not be tangled up with the mass manufacturing of weapons of war.
We ask the student body to vote “yes” on Referendum No. 5 to call upon the Trustees of Princeton University and PRINCO to disclose and divest all direct and indirect holdings in companies involved in weapons development, manufacturing, or trade. This referendum seeks to increase communication between and accountability from the administration and student body on socially responsible investments.
Princeton University’s endowment stands at a staggering $34.1 billion. The Princeton University Investment Company (PRINCO), which manages the endowment, decides how to invest it. And it has investments in weapons manufacturers.
Princeton claims to have values; its informal motto, “in the nation’s service and the service of humanity,” reflects this. In fact, University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 rejects institutional neutrality: “You can’t be neutral about everything,” he said in an interview with the ‘Prince’ earlier this year.
The University has invested in arms manufacturers who lobby for increasing military budgets and profit off of conflict, leading to more war, genocide, and a plethora of human rights violations globally. Weapons manufacturers also enable military operations that account for a staggering 5.5 percent of total global carbon emissions. The U.S. plays an outsized role and accounts for more than 40 percent of the planet’s weapons exports.
Although we can’t get a full picture of the University’s current investments without a complete disclosure from PRINCO, we do know from PIAD’s divestment proposal and conclusions that it possessed direct holdings in weapons manufacturers, such as TransDigm Group in 2022, and potentially holds indirect holdings via Farallon Capital Management’s investments in Howmet Aerospace and 645 Ventures’ investments in Firestorm — both military contractors.
But Princeton’s undisclosed investments in weapons manufacturing may include companies besides the disclosed ones above. Referendum No. 5 specifically calls on the University, as a first priority, to disclose investments in and divest from the world’s largest military companies: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, RTX (formerly Raytheon) and General Dynamics.
And divestment from these American weapons companies would send a strong message: We, as students of Princeton University, no longer wish to profit off the deaths their businesses cause.
Under U.S. President Joe Biden’s leadership, the United States has approved arms sales to the government of Israel so regularly that Israel received U.S. weapons shipments, on average, every 1.5 days in the 150 days after Oct. 7, enabling it to continue its campaign to commit the genocide of Palestinians. In fact, U.S. weapons account for over 70 percent of the weapons used in Palestine. An article published in the Lancet estimated that at least 186,000 deaths are attributable to the current genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. The Palestinian Health Ministry, a U.N. trusted source, reports that Israel has killed more than 17,000 children. As of April, Israel had dropped close to 75,000 tonnes of explosives on 6 by 25 miles of Gaza. The tonnage of explosives dropped is now likely higher. We have paid for these weapons as a country.
Counting the weapons we send directly to Israel is an underestimate of the scope of U.S. involvement: Israel has received over $22 billion dollars of U.S. taxpayer money in the form of U.S. military aid since October 2023, and a large portion of these funds have been allocated for the purchase of U.S.-made weapons.
Even American “aid” contributes to the sale of arms and weapons that are being used to indiscriminately kill civilians across Palestine and Lebanon. The Israeli government has been so ruthless with American weapons that the ICC has now issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant.
But the big five companies’ investment in war goes beyond simply supplying the weapons used for it — these companies also have major influence on American foreign policy and war-profiteering.
The weapons industry has lobbied $2.5 billion dollars “across the Pentagon, Congress, the State Department, and the White House, while donating millions to candidates across various political parties.”
Large numbers of the Bush-Cheney administration, which waged the war in Afghanistan and the Iraq war that led to the murders of hundreds of thousands of civilians, had ties to Lockheed Martin. RTX pressured against limiting U.S. armament supplies to the Saudis who committed human rights violations against innocent civilians and children in Yemen using their weaponry.
Most recently, the United Arab Emirates — a significant client for American weapons manufacturers — has funneled American weapons into Sudan, which has caused a humanitarian crisis. 16,650 people have been killed in the conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces and Rapid Support Forces, with an estimated much higher death toll and more than 11 million internally displaced and millions at immediate risk of famine.
This all leads to rising stocks and privatized profits for American defense contractors. Lockheed Martin’s CEO, Jim Taiclet ’84 GS — a SPIA alumnus — stated that the FY 2025 “presidential budget requests and additive supplemental funding will provide a strong underpinning for future growth over the next several years for our company.” As weapons suppliers continue to profit off of the continual supply of these arms, they remind us of the urgency of divestment.
The goal of divestment serves two purposes. Morally, Princeton’s funds should not be complicit in the funding of arms manufacturers and genocide. Materially, divestment, when undertaken on a large scale, can financially impact companies — both coal company Peabody Energy and Shell have cited fossil fuel divestment as having adverse effects on their business. On both counts, Princeton divesting would set an example for other universities and “value-laden” institutions — a firm stance that these bodies that care about people should not financially contribute to death and destruction.
Human rights are not an issue to be silent on, and the University knows this. One key way to reject violations of human rights across the world is through divestment from weapons manufacturers.
The passing of Referendum No. 5 will enable the student body to communicate to the administration that we want them to reject human rights violations across the world through disclosure and divestment from weapons manufacturers.
The loss of life to war is a tragedy, and it is our duty to uphold the ethical standards necessary to prevent its continuance. Vote “yes” on Referendum No. 5 Monday through Wednesday to put Princeton University on the course of enacting its supposed values.
M.E.H. Bahri GS ’23, Amber Rahman ’25, Thomas Coulouras ’25, Givarra Azhar Abdullah ’27 are organizing in favor of Referendum No. 5 on the 2024 USG ballot. Azhar Abdullah is sponsoring the referendum.
Signed,
The ‘Prince’ independently verified the following list of signatories. Signatures were made by student leaders of the respective groups.
Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP)
Princeton Young Democratic Socialists of America (YDSA)
Muslim Student Association (MSA)
Black Student Union (BSU)
Muslim Advocates for Social Justice and Individual Dignity (MASJID)
Alliance of Jewish Progressives (AJP)
Students for Prison Education, Abolition and Reform (SPEAR)
Sri Lankans at Princeton (SLAP)
The signatories listed signed as of 6:00 p.m. EST on Nov. 25, 2024. To view a full list of signatories or to sign the letter, please see this continuously updating document. The document is monitored by the authors of the letter.
Read More
Princeton, why don’t you care about the working class?
Raf Basas“Princeton is an engine that currently transforms a few thousand people per year, using incredible academic, career, and financial resources, into influential decision-makers. It should turn them into compassionate and public-minded ones, too. Princeton students can and should become allies of the working class.”
“Princeton is an engine that currently transforms a few thousand people per year, using incredible academic, career, and financial resources, into influential decision-makers. It should turn them into compassionate and public-minded ones, too. Princeton students can and should become allies of the working class.”
Princeton, break up with BP
Alex Norbrook and Ryan Divan“BP cannot be considered a credible climate partner for Princeton’s research, and its relationship cannot continue.”
“BP cannot be considered a credible climate partner for Princeton’s research, and its relationship cannot continue.”
Confessions of a campus moderate
Abigail Rabieh“Obsessive interest in university life harms the learning that goes on within. When student opinions are given outsized attention, we start to believe that they have something meaningful to say and forget that they are, in fact, still very much in the process of learning how to think.”
“Obsessive interest in university life harms the learning that goes on within. When student opinions are given outsized attention, we start to believe that they have something meaningful to say and forget that they are, in fact, still very much in the process of learning how to think.”
