There’s a difference between avoiding politics and ignoring injustice, but Queen’s doesn’t act like it.
Institutional neutrality, a term gaining attention at Canadian universities, suggests organizations should avoid taking political positions because they’re made up of individuals with differing perspectives. On its face, that principle is reasonable. Politics is often muddy and complicated, so it makes sense that Queen’s would want to avoid taking positions on contentious political issues. Still, there’s an important difference between a disputed political question and a clear humanitarian injustice, and that’s where Queen’s “neutrality” should end.
A political stance is a position on how society should be organized and governed. Queen’s doesn’t, and shouldn’t, have positions on liberalism or conservatism, nor should it have positions on libertarianism or authoritarianism. These topics are totally reasonable for the University to avoid. They’re complicated by nature, and taking a position could negatively impact Queen’s perception as an open place of learning.
The same cannot be said for humanitarian injustices. Given the clear issue of human rights violations, it’s difficult to claim neutrality in these situations. This is especially evident given Queen’s commitment to analogous frameworks that inherently uphold these rights, such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which address a range of social issues, including SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), and others.
However, Queen’s still falls back on the idea of institutional neutrality when it comes to decision-making on overt injustices. For example, institutional neutrality was cited as a key factor in the decision not to divest from companies operating with or in the State of Israel, despite repeated reports of social injustices perpetuated by the State.
This decision seemingly complicates what Queen’s means by “institutional neutrality,” given that within Queen’s own Responsible Investment Policy, it states that “External Investment Managers [who’re responsible for investing University funds] will be required to take due regard of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors in making investment decisions.”
If the concerns with Israel are essentially being labelled as inherently political and in conflict with institutional neutrality, despite the concerns raised being related to social outcomes rather than any particular ideology, what can fall under the “S” of this ESG policy?
This is where the distinction between ESG factors and political topics becomes extremely important. Politics involves varying ideologies, whereas ESG factors are more about injustices or issues.
Queen’s can’t say that ESGs inform their investing but then claim “institutional neutrality” when social issues are raised. If you equate politics with social issues themselves, then any social ESG consideration will automatically violate principles of institutional neutrality.
This argument isn’t to make the case for or against divestment. However, it’s a clear contradiction for Queen’s to claim a commitment to ESG-mindful investing but then cry institutional neutrality when considering a social injustice.
There must be a clear definition of what falls under institutional neutrality and how this can exist alongside ESG factors. With the Responsible Investing Policy currently in review, a sensible framework must be outlined in the next rendition that considers this push and pull. If Queen’s were to distinguish political topics and commitments to social investing in the next policy, that would deal with some of this conflict.
Ultimately, ESG factors, especially social ones, should be considered when weighing investment decisions, not just pushed aside and labelled as not neutral enough.
Despite all the points made, it’s still entirely possible for Queen’s to remain committed to both the ESGs and institutional neutrality. While there are various forms of ESGs, generally speaking, they don’t touch on political ideologies. Therefore, it’s possible for Queen’s to remain committed to ESGs as long as they’re able to separate two fundamentally different ideas: politics and injustice.
Jonathan Reilly is a third–year Political Studies student and The Journal’s Senior News Editor.
Tags
Divestment, Institutional Neutrality, neutrality
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to eic@queensjournal.ca.
Ecstatic Alum 69'
wow, this is some great work. From someone who is an alumni of the year 69′, Jonathan Reilly you are the tuffest