Zoe Berg, Senior Photographer

The Advisory Committee on Investor Responsibility, Yale’s primary reviewer of ethical investing, will review three student divestment proposals that were presented at its annual open meeting over Zoom on Wednesday, Nov. 20.

The student presentations, led by members of the Yale Undergraduate Prison Project, the Sumud Coalition and the Endowment Justice Collective, argued respectively for the ACIR to deem a data analytics company, military weapons manufacturers and British oil company BP ineligible for investment from the Yale endowment. 

The ACIR, which considers ethical investing concerns from the Yale community and recommends policy to the Yale Corporation, will review each presentation. The review will determine if the companies in question cause “grave social injury,” the prerequisite for divestment as laid out by The Ethical Investor, Yale’s ethical investment framework.

“This concept of social injury that we use as we consider divestment or ineligibility proposals is a very high bar,” professor Heather Tookes, chair of the ACIR, said at the meeting. “It is seen as an activity of last resort.”

While the ACIR reviews ethical investing concerns raised by Yale community members, it does not directly make investment decisions. Instead, if a review finds that an investment should not be eligible for Yale’s endowment, the ACIR makes a recommendation to the Corporation Committee on Investor Responsibility, which then decides whether to accept an ACIR policy recommendation.

According to the ACIR’s website, the review process “may take several months or more to complete.”

Tookes wrote that if the ACIR does not find that an investment meets ineligibility criteria, the ACIR will inform the proposal’s presenter of the review outcome. If a review results in the Yale Corporation’s adoption of new investment policies, the Yale community will be officially informed.

Palantir Technologies and emerging problems with big data

Karsten Rynearson ’26, who presented on behalf of YUPP, argued that Palantir Technologies, a company co-founded by Peter Thiel which specializes in big data analytics, should be deemed ineligible for investment based on its contracts with entities like Immigration and Customs Enforcement, various police departments and the Israeli military.

Palantir Technologies is contracted to provide its Investigative Case Management software to the Department of Homeland Security. According to Rynearson, this software enables ICE to arrest migrants and asylum seekers, leading to family separation, prolonged detentions and deportations. Palantir has stated that it only contracts with the criminal investigative division of ICE and that its software “does not facilitate” ICE’s immigration enforcement, detention or deportation operations.

Rynearson also raised concerns about the use of Palantir’s predictive policing technologies, which he argued exacerbate over-policing and racial profiling. According to The Verge, through a secretive contract with the New Orleans Police Department, Palantir Technologies has also tested a controversial predictive policing technology that analyzes individuals’ social media and criminal histories to forecast their likelihood of committing or becoming a victim of violence. Palantir also provides similar services to the Los Angeles Police Department, per WIRED.

Pointing to Palantir’s contracts with the Israeli Defense Ministry, Rynearson argued that the company enables the killing of civilians in Gaza. According to Bloomberg, Palantir provides services like its Artificial Intelligence Platform to Israel, which can aid in analyzing enemy targets and potentially ignore civilian casualties. 

Rynearson added that in October, Storebrand Asset Management, one of the Nordic region’s largest asset managers, divested from its holdings in Palantir out of concerns that Israel’s use of the company’s products and services in Gaza and the West Bank violated international humanitarian law and human rights, per Reuters. Rynearson said that Storebrand’s divestment sets a precedent for Yale to scrutinize investmenting in Palantir. 

Rynearson concluded that the ACIR should reevaluate and update its ethical investment framework, which has not changed since its inception in 1972, to better respond to emergent technologies.

“When a company continues to license its technologies for usage in detention, racial profiling and civilian killings, we need to think about the impacts of that and respond better,” Rynearson said. 

While Rynearson’s presentation centered on Palantir Technologies, members of the ACIR expressed interest in examining whether similar social harms may be taking place due to emerging technologies more broadly. Darcy Frisch ’92, an alumna serving on the ACIR, commented that Rynearson’s presentation was “timely” given current developments in artificial intelligence and pointed out that “big companies and government entities are still sorting out what is the ethical application of AI.”

Renewing the conversation on military weapons manufacturers

Five members of the Sumud Coalition presented in support of divestment from military weapons manufacturers, arguing that the civilian deaths caused by the Israeli military’s use of military weapons constituted social injury in violation of Yale’s ethical investment framework. 

“On a very fundamental level, death and the massacre of innocent lives is the most egregious form of social injury, and our line of reasoning arises from the fact that the ACIR has already divested from assault weapons manufacturers,” Koby Chen ’26, a presenter from the coalition, said. 

Within Yale’s investment policies, military weapons manufacturers are distinct from assault weapons retailers. The University divested from the latter group in 2018 and expanded its policy to bar holdings in assault weapons manufacturers that retail to the general public in April 2024.

In April 2024, following a year-long ACIR review, Yale announced that it would not divest from military weapons manufacturers, stating that military weapons manufacturing “supports socially necessary uses, such as law enforcement and national security” and thus does not meet the standard of grave social injury. Yale’s investment policy states that “social injury shall not consist of doing business with other companies which are themselves engaged in socially injurious activities.”

Tookes wrote to the News that for presentations on previously reviewed topics, “the ACIR will discuss whether there are new material developments to consider.”

During the presentation, students pointed to developments in the past year, such as the United Nations Special Committee finding that Israel’s warfare methods in Gaza are “consistent with the characteristics of genocide.”

“The activities of these companies — that is, the manufacturing and selling of weapons — enable genocide. They do violate international law,” Katie Flemming ’28, another Sumud Coalition presenter, said.

The Sumud Coalition’s presentation recapitulated over a year of student demonstrations in support of divestment from military weapons. As part of the coalition’s advocacy efforts, Yale undergraduates will soon vote in a Yale College Council referendum on divestment from military weapons manufacturers. 

“The ACIR has a very specific mandate, as laid out by the Ethical Investor,” Tookes wrote to the News. “That said, votes like these, along with other ways that sentiments are expressed on campus, could help the committee understand whether there is agreement or division in the community around issues that the ACIR is asked to consider.”

Divesting from BP and reconsidering the ACIR’s fossil fuels principles

Four members of the EJC argued that Yale should divest from British oil company BP based on its violations of the University’s existing fossil fuels investment principles. 

“We feel very strongly that Yale is allowing itself to be misled and manipulated by BP at the expense of its students’ futures,” Naina Agrawal-Hardin ’25, a presenter from the EJC, said.

In 2021, following a review by the Committee on Fossil Fuel Investment Principles appointed by then-University President Peter Salovey, Yale Corporation adopted a set of five principles to govern Yale’s investments in fossil fuels. 

The principles specify that fossil fuel producers must avoid high greenhouse gas emissions; follow best industry practices to reduce emissions; comply with climate change regulations; support public communication on climate change and remain transparent with Yale regarding their compliance with the principles. In the past, Yale has divested from ExxonMobil and Chevron, among over 100 other companies, in line with these principles.

During the presentation, members of the EJC argued that BP violates four out of five principles. 

The fossil fuel committee’s report specifies that adherence to principle two would include divestment from “an oil producer that engages in routine venting or flaring” or the burning of natural gas during the oil extraction process.

Tara Bhat ’25, an EJC presenter, pointed to a BBC investigation revealing that BP engaged in flaring in Iraq, which was linked to deadly, cancer-causing pollutants in surrounding areas. The investigation also found that BP failed to disclose these flaring practices in line with its 2015 pledge to the World Bank to declare and end routine flaring by 2030.

Isabel Matos ’28, another presenter from the EJC, also claimed that BP violates Yale’s third fossil fuels principle pertaining to support and compliance with “sensible government regulation and industry self-regulation addressing climate change.” Matos argued that BP’s lobbying efforts oppose legislation taxing oil producers and support policies making it easier for companies like BP to engage in fracking and receive federal subsidies.

Finally, EJC presenters argued that BP intentionally misleads investors regarding their commitments to decarbonization, thus violating Yale’s fourth and fifth fossil fuel investment principles pertaining to climate science communication and transparency. 

According to the Guardian, BP spent over £800,000 on social media advertisements promoting its investments in green and renewable energy. Matos characterized this expenditure as “greenwashing,” stating that BP “has no actual commitment” to communicating climate science.

The presenters also made a broader point that the ACIR should reevaluate Yale’s fossil fuels investment principles, as they claimed that many oil companies obscure information from investors.

“While yes, we are absolutely advising that Yale divest from BP specifically and allow BP to join the ranks of other carbon majors that have been deemed ineligible for investment, we’re also making a broader point, which is that the fossil fuel investment principles are fundamentally flawed,” Agrawal-Hardin said. 

The ACIR was established in the 1972–73 academic year.