Illustrative: Pro-Hamas activists rally at an encampment for Gaza on April 25, 2025. Photo: Allison Bailey via Reuters Connect

Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine has rejected the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, as its Board of Trustees voted to accept the counsel of a committee that recommended maintaining investment practices which safeguard the institution’s financial health and educational mission.

“The endowment exists solely to provide financial support of the college across generations,” said a report submitted to trustees in February and, according to The Bowdoin Orient, ratified by them last week. “It should not be used as a tool for the advocacy of public policy.”

The reported, authored by the college’s Ad Hoc Committee on Investments and Responsibility (ACIR), continued, “Interventions in the management of the endowment that are rooted in moral or political considerations should be exceedingly rare and restricted to those cases where there is near-universal consensus among Bowdoin’s community of stakeholders … if such actions are pursued, they should be taken only where the financial trade-offs are identifiable, measurable, and limited.”

Bowdoin’s review of its investment practices was prompted by a May 2024 “Solidarity Referendum” in which Bowdoin students called for the college to accuse Israel of “scholasticide” in an “institutional statement” and divest from companies supplying Israel with armaments and other services which contribute to its security. Having passed by what the Orient described in May 2024 as a “66 percent supermajority,” the referendum earned a response from Bowdoin president Safa Zaki. However, Zaki, citing an established practice of her administration, declined to issue any such statement and referred the other referendum items to the board of trustees.

The following semester, Zaki created ACIR, appointing it to study the issue and recommend policies for any “future specific requests regarding the endowment.”

The committee’s mission was always “broader” than addressing divestment from Israel, as it was being asked to rule on matters which involve binding agreements with “generations of alumni, family, and friends who created endowed funds for Bowdoin College underpinned by a contractual guarantee that their gifts would be managed and invested prudently to further the educational mission,” ACIR said in last month’s report.

“Among the hundreds of signed endowment terms in the college’s files, there are no explicit donor instructions that the gift be invested using practices that would advance a position on social or political questions,” the committee explained. “Each of these transactions involved entrusting the college to manage the money in a way that maximizes the benefit for both current and future students. Another important aspect of the educational mission of the college is to create and maintain an environment in which all topics can be discussed openly and respectfully, where ideas can be challenged and analyzed, and where differing viewpoints can coexist and be understood and appreciated … using the endowment as an advocacy tool for a specific political position may run counter to maintaining this atmosphere.”

Zaki endorsed ACIR’s report on Friday, saying that “using our endowment to make political statements on world affairs introduces the risk of losing access to the best investment managers.” Meanwhile, the campus group Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) told the Orient that “it’s really impossible to argue that this committee structure was anywhere near as effective as the referendum was in engaging the community and gathering perspectives.”

Bowdoin College is not the first higher education institution to cite its fiduciary obligations as cause for eschewing divestment from Israel.

Boston University did so last month, with its president, Melissa Gilliam saying, “the endowment is no longer the vehicle for political debate; nevertheless, I will continue to seek ways that members of our community can engage with each other on political issues of our day including the conflict in the Middle East.”

Trinity College turned away BDS advocates in November, citing its “fiduciary responsibilities” and “primary objective of maintaining the endowment’s intergeneration equity.” It also noted that acceding to demands for divestment for the sake of “utilizing the endowment to exert political influence” would injure the college financially, stressing that doing so would “compromise our access to fund managers, in turn undermining the board’s ability to perform its fiduciary obligation.”

The University of Minnesota in August pointed to the same reason for spurning divestment while stressing the extent to which the Israeli-Palestinian conflict polarizes its campus community. It coupled its pronouncement with a new investment policy, a so-called “position of neutrality” which, it says, will be a guardrail protecting university business from the caprices of political opinion.

Colleges and universities will squanders tens of billions of dollars in endowment returns if they capitulate to demands to divest from Israel, according to a report published in September by JLens, a Jewish investor network that is part of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Titled “The Impact of Israel Divestment on Equity Portfolios: Forecasting BDS’s Financial Toll on University Endowments,” the report presented the potential financial impact of universities adopting the BDS movement, which is widely condemned for being antisemitic.

The losses JLens forecasted are catastrophic. Adopting BDS, it said, would incinerate $33.21 billion of future returns for the 100 largest university endowments over the next 10 years, with Harvard University losing $2.5 billion and the University of Texas losing $2.2 billion. Other schools would forfeit over $1 billion, including the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, and Princeton University. For others, such as the University of Michigan and Dartmouth College, the damages would total in the hundreds of millions.

“This groundbreaking report approached the morally problematic BDS movement from an entirely new direction — its negative impact on portfolio returns,” New York University adjunct professor Michael Lustig said in a statement extolling the report. “JLens has done a great job in quantifying the financial effects of implementing the suggestions of this pernicious movement, and importantly, they ‘show their work’ by providing full transparency into their methodology and properly caveat the points where assumptions must necessarily be made. This report will prove to be an important tool in helping to fight noxious BDS advocacy.”

As for Bowdoin, college officials there recently withstood an attempt to secure compliance with BDS by force.

Last month, members of SJP stormed Smith Union and installed an encampment there in response to US President Donald Trump’s proposing that the US “take over” the Gaza Strip and transform it into a hub for tourism and economic dynamism. The roughly 50 students residing inside the building had vowed not to leave until Bowdoin agreed to boycott Israel and accede to other demands.

Ultimately, the college imposed light disciplinary sanctions on eight students — who were later given the sobriquet “Bowdoin Eight” by their collaborators — it identified as ringleaders of the unauthorized demonstration, sentencing them to probation.

Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.