Princeton will not pursue dissociation from Israel, Resources Committee says

A proposal for the University to cut financial ties with entities implicated in “Israel’s illegal occupations, apartheid practices, and plausible acts of genocide” will not move forward following months of deliberation from the Resources Committee, a body of faculty, students, and staff that makes dissociation recommendations to Princeton’s Board of Trustees.

The Resources Committee’s criteria to recommend dissociation includes a need for sustained campus interest, a central University value at stake, and campus consensus. This criteria is meant to serve as a “high bar” for determining whether the recommended stance will be consistent with the University’s core mission. Such recommendations, however, are not binding for the Board of Trustees, who have the final say on dissociation decisions.

In an Opinion piece in The Daily Princetonian announcing the decision on Wednesday morning, Resources Committee Chair John Groves wrote that there was no campus consensus.

“Without the possibility of consensus, there can be no divestment and dissociation at Princeton, and the feedback we received made it plain that our community is sharply and inexorably divided on this topic,” he wrote. “Indeed, our process revealed that a lack of consensus is a defining quality of the Princeton conversation about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

The proposal, first submitted in June by the group Princeton Israeli Apartheid Divest (PIAD), contained specific standards and steps for divestment — the sale of investments held by the University’s endowment — from Israel. Dissociation is a related but broader action that includes research funding and other financial relationships. The proposal included seven criteria for divestment and the creation of a new position: a “Divestment Manager.” The focus on divestment represented a narrowing of demands from the “Gaza Solidarity Encampment,” which had called for dissociation from Israeli academic institutions, among other demands.

In the months following the initial submission of the divestment request, the Committee received over 2,000 emails and other correspondence on the issue, as well as over 2,300 distinct responses in a community input process started in September. This input process was offered via a digital form on the Resources Committee’s website, which was available to all members of the campus community from Sep. 30 to Oct. 11.

Grove wrote that consensus was not measured by “counting methods” such as tabulating polls, signatures, and messages. However, he wrote that it was “plainly evident from the comments and materials submitted to our committee that there are multiple, divergent, and strongly held views in our community about the topics raised in the dissociation petition.”

On May 13, 2024, President Eisgruber sent a campus-wide email announcing that the Resources Committee would be taking up proposals to divest from Israel. Ten days later, the Committee met with PIAD for the first time, marking the start of a lengthy deliberation process.

The Resources Committee initially met to assess the divestment request on May 14 before convening with PIAD representatives ten days later. It also met with PIAD again in the fall, as well as a group of faculty, according to the report.

Princeton’s decision comes many months after peer institutions declined to divest. In October, Brown University Corporation voted to not divest from companies with Israeli military ties. At the University of Pennsylvania, the university’s steering committee declined a divestment proposal in October. Earlier this year, Johns Hopkins also rejected calls for divestment.

Christopher Bao is a head News editor for the ‘Prince.’ He is from Princeton, N.J. and typically covers town politics and life.

Luke Grippo is a staff News writer for the ‘Prince.’ He is from South Jersey and usually covers administrative issues, including USG, the CPUC, and institutional legacy.