As divestment requests are on track to be paused until December 2026, some say it’s too long a wait.
Procedure 2 (Special Requests) is the policy under which groups can make requests for the University to align its investments with “responsible investing,” which the University defines in its Responsible Investing Policy as an investment approach that takes environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors into consideration.
Currently, both Procedure 2 and the Responsible Investing Policy are under review, with Queen’s writing in a statement to The Journal that it’s “committed to completing both reviews as expeditiously as possible, while ensuring they are conducted thoroughly and effectively.”
The University pointed to a Jan. 16 report to the principal by the Review Committee for Responsible Investing, recommending Queen’s review the special request procedure. Queen’s explained that the committee recognized that its funds aren’t “to be used to make political or symbolic statements.”
“The Committee further recommended that future special requests clearly demonstrate how their recommendations are consistent with fiduciary responsibility and institutional neutrality, and how they would effectively influence behaviour,” Queen’s wrote.
The procedure was initially put on hold in March 2025 after the decision not to divest from companies doing business in or with the state of Israel. It was later announced in a December 2025 Board of Trustees (BOT) meeting that the policy wouldn’t be brought for review until the December BOT in 2026.
The University also explained the reason for this one-year and nine-month review period, adding that the policy was initially drafted in 2017.
“In this case, the review timeline was extended due to the rapidly evolving ESG landscape and the university’s adoption of the UN Principles for Responsible Investment (UNPRI), to which it became a signatory in 2022. The extended timeline also allowed for the completion of two recent Special Requests, which will help inform aspects of the broader policy review,” Queen’s wrote.
In an interview with The Journal, Queen’s Backing Action on the Climate Crisis (QBACC) co-President Olivia Winslow, ArtSci ’26, explained that when she ultimately learned that the procedure was closed, she was shocked, arguing these sorts of mechanisms are a necessity given Queen’s students pay tuition, which is then invested.
“If you think about it like a company, if you’re investing, you own a share of this company, you own a share of this University, you’re a stakeholder. [Now] you don’t get to have a say in how your money’s being spent. No, that’s insane,” she said.
QBACC’s request to divest from fossil fuels under Procedure 2 was ruled on at the end of 2025, as it was submitted before the policy was initially suspended in March, but was ultimately rejected.
READ MORE: Queen’s rejects request for divestment from fossil fuels
In their statement, Queen’s pointed to the fact that its March 2025 announcement encouraged those who had wished to bring concerns during the review period to contact the Secretariat’s Office.
Winslow explained that while she saw this in the initial announcement, she said there should be an established alternative in the meantime, adding there needs to be an “interim procedure.”
“There needs to be some way that you can still request a review of Queen’s investments in the meantime. It’s not just, ‘we’re reviewing the procedure, so you just can’t make any critiques of the investments during this time.’ No, that’s not how it works,” she said.
Winslow explained that, in her view, given the turnover in student positions, it may be in the best interest of Queen’s to delay.
“There is a definite feeling that the turnover rate is so high that the University can kind of wait for the motivation to die down and outlast the group of people, or the one or two people, who are really pushing for this change, review, or deep dive into the investments,” Winslow said.
Despite this, Winslow said her club hasn’t given up on divestment and that they’ll continue to push in the future, even when her term is over.
Tags
Divestment, Procedure 2 (Special Requests), QBACC, Queen's University, Responsible Investing Policy
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 journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.
Anon
The co-President of QBAC is mistaken in thinking she is a shareholder of Queen’s. She is, in fact, a customer. She does not own any part of Queen’s, regardless of any feelings of entitlement.
Once you give your money to an organization where you don’t have an ownership stake (as in this case), you lose your agency in terms of how the money is spent. If she doesn’t like it, the recourse is to give your money to a different organization instead.