Editorial: Addressing human rights would clarify UC’s stance on Dakota pipeline

Students often protest with signs and chants, but universities can protest with money.

And while the University of California has been vocal about a great many matters such as immigration and fossil fuels, its messaging over Dakota Access pipeline lacks the clarity necessary for a major humanitarian issue.

Last month, university regents announced the UC has reduced its investments in two companies – Energy Transfer Partners and Sunoco Logistics – that had ties to the DAPL.

DAPL is a 1,172-mile-long pipeline that will be used to transport oil underground from North Dakota to Illinois. Its construction has faced controversy after Native American tribes claimed it would disrupt sacred burial grounds. Some fear it would also harm the environment, especially local water quality.

The UC cited its investment policies, which require the University adhere to certain sustainability requirements, as the reason for divesting from the DAPL-associated companies. But while environmental and sustainability issues merit the UC’s concern, the University is shying away from the social aspect of the issue – that a Native American tribe’s tradition is being trampled on due to the pipeline’s construction.

The UC needs to make clear its position regarding human rights concerns about DAPL. Rather than simply referencing its investment policies, it needs to clarify its stance on the Standing Rock tribe. This humanitarian aspect affects the tenor of the debate over DAPL, and addressing it would help the UC prevent confusion over the message it sent by divesting from the DAPL-associated companies.

While the UC can’t legally take direct political stances on partisan matters, it has spoken out to elected officials for matters related to its own principles on several occasions. For example, UC President Janet Napolitano signed an open letter to President Donald Trump in November amid concerns over his immigration policies. And it’s not hard to see how the humanitarian and environmental concerns of DAPL would inspire the UC’s outspokenness on the matter.

But the University has muddied the waters on its stance on the pipeline. According to Stephanie Beechem, a UC spokesperson, the UC is divesting from DAPL based on the stipulations of its sustainable investment framework. While the UC expects to reduce its stock holdings in the DAPL-associated companies, it cannot provide information about the timing of its specific investment transactions.

In other words, the university is focusing mainly on its investment terms and rules and avoiding the argument over the humanitarian concerns, opening the door to confusion about the debate as a whole.

While events happening on tribal lands in North Dakota and South Dakota seem removed from the University’s purview in California, it has already made a partial statement by divesting from companies involved in the project. Clarifying its stance on the humanitarian aspect of the debate – which is not mutually exclusive from the environmental concerns of the pipeline – is crucial for the UC to show its dedication to its principles.

Divestment can be an important symbolic means to take a stance on an issue – and in this case, the UC needs to make clear what exactly that stance is.

.