Swarthmore College
Endowment: $930 Million 
Committee on Socially Responsible Investing (CSRI) 

Membership
·	five students, five administrators (Chair Investment Committee, Investment Committee Member, VP Finance and Treasurer, Director of Investments, Treasury Operations Assistant)

Role of CSRI
·	to vote on all social issue proxy resolutions and introducing its own shareholder resolutions (approx. 10 per year)
·	committee unique because does not report to the Board of Trustees for a final decision

Role of students: shareholder advocacy
·	to research social issue proxy resolutions, based on following:
o	copy of the resolution
o	statements from management
o	IRRC (Investor Responsibility Research Center--www.irrc.org)
o	ICCR (Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility--www.iccr.org)
o	Walden Assets Management 
o	other non-profit advocacy groups
·	to propose own resolutions (significant portion of time and energy):
o	e.g., 2002-2003, CSRI introduced successful proposal that Lockheed-Martin broaden its anti-discrimination policy
o	this and two other resolutions, both on non-discrimination based on sexual orientation, led to change though the did not pass (this garnered 5%, more than the 3% necessary to refile resolution next year; the other two were preempted by management)
 
Role of non-student members
·	to review and decide on student recommendations

Endowment fund publicity
·	current endowment information available to students on committee via administrators on committee 
·	names to all publicly traded holdings in the Swarthmore endowment are available to the college community

An argument for voting on proxy resolutions from Barnard (in partnership w/ Colombia):
1.	Socially responsible investing has become fairly common at universities/colleges. 
2.	The Trustees would still have complete control over the endowment: our Committee’s role would be to advise the Trustees over ethical issues relating to our endowment, but final control over the funds would remain fully with them. 
3.	As a non-profit institution chartered to act in the public interest, it is our legal responsibility to consider the impact our investment decisions have on the public. 
4.	As an educational institution, it is our responsibility to vote on proxies after a rigorous intellectual discussion on the issues at hand, rather than surrendering our vote to management. In other words, either way we are voting our proxies, the question is whether we will do it in a deliberate and conscientious manner, or whether we will vote blindly. 
5.	Our school has committed itself to certain policies, such as the fact that we are an equal opportunity employer. It would be hypocritical for us to advocate for certain social principles within the school, but then defeat them with our investment policy.