Six days before the Student Life Initiative embroiled the campus in controversy, another debate was brewing.
A group of Dartmouth Medical School students had spearheaded a campaign to get the College to divest from tobacco companies, citing the dire health consequences of smoking as justification for withdrawing financial support from companies like Philip-Morris.
They presented their argument in early 1999 to a Trustee committee on investor responsibility that also included faculty, students and administrators.
The committee responded favorably to the proposal, recommending that the Board consider divestment.
But the issue was to vanish almost immediately.
Just as the Trustees were in the midst of debating divestment from tobacco, the Feb. 10 announcement of the Initiative pushed tobacco -- and many other matters -- to the side.
As a result, no decision has since been made about divesting.
DMS Professor of Medicine Joseph O'Donnell worked with the group of medical students who pushed for divestment. The presentation was "extremely well-received," O'Donnell said.
Jonathan King, vice president of investments, attended the committee meetings and said the arguments in favor of withdrawing support from cigarette companies were gaining ground.
"I was quite impressed," King said.
The committee focused on whether or not divestment was a large enough gesture against tobacco. Some thought that divestment would be "a slap on the wrist," O'Donnell said.
Part of that was because the investment in tobacco made up "significantly less than one percent" of Dartmouth's endowment in 1999, King said. Because of the negligible size of the tobacco holdings, some argued that divestment would not hurt the tobacco companies in the pocketbook.
"If Dartmouth sold all its stock in tobacco tomorrow, it would not even hit the radar screen," King said. "It would be a principled stand, but with little economic impact."
The committee also discussed whether or not divestment would be appropriate, given that smoking was not banned on campus.
"Some thought that it would be hypocritical to divest from tobacco until the campus took more steps against smoking," King said. "They thought it would be more meaningful to promote anti-smoking."
There was also debate over what sort of a precedent would be set by divestment. The Board did not want to begin evaluating investments "piece by piece," Board of Trustees Chair Susan Dentzer '77 said.
"It would be better to have a more well thought out process," she explained.
Divesting from tobacco could have led to reconsidering other investments, King said. "If we divest from tobacco, what is the next step? And who gets to decide what is acceptable?" King said.
In light of all these and other issues, the committee recommended that the Board consider the issue. While Trustees were gearing up for the debate, the arguments were never presented again, according to a knowledgeable source.
Within six short days the Trustees became consumed with the reverberations of the Initiative, and divestment became "a classic case of an issue finding its way to the back burner," King said.
Dentzer believes that "the subject will get aired" by a newly-formed advisory committee on investor responsibility. The new committee will be made up of faculty, administrators, alumni and students, and will consider the ethical implications of the college's investments.
