It's easy to be idealistic with other people's money.

It's an index fund. AN INDEX FUND. It tracks an index - it's not like some money manager is choosing to invest in "evil corporations". It just follows the market capitalization of the companies in the index.

Index funds themselves buy the stocks which they're tracking, so holdings of stock in such funds represent indirect ownership with corresponding complicities. That's why funds have been established which do not include stocks of companies with harmful practices in their index "basket."

What is "indirect ownership"? Find me one regulation that mentions the phrase "indirect ownership". Please don't talk about how to invest Harvard's money until you know how to invest money.

It's indeed a complicated subject, but the fact is that stock-based Exchange-Traded Funds buy stocks corresponding to those in the Indexes they're tracking, and the value of those is converted into shares which are traded on stock exchanges. It's not a question of regulation; it's the reality of how ETFs function, as is stated in prospectuses.

A professor in the econ department should point out to Nicole Granath that her statement shows her igonorance. No money, directly or indirectly, is going to gun manufacturers.
It would be good if she realized what it means to invest in companies... and to learn enough not to make false statements.

“I think the key takeaway here is that Harvard’s money...is going to support the manufacture and production of assault weapons,” said Nicole E. Granath ’15, co-director of Responsible Investment at Harvard. She added that even though the investment is indirect, any amount of money going to gunmakers is symbolic of support for the industry.

never question a liberal! the truth and reality never factor in to what they think.

“I think the key takeaway here is that Harvard’s money...is going to support the manufacture and production of assault weapons,” said Nicole E. Granath ’15.

$10 says she could not tell the difference between semi-auto and full-auto, and whether an AR-15 is the former or the latter.

There's in fact a big difference between the two. Stock holdings are partial ownership of the issuing company, and purchasers contribute to the market for such ownership, as well as assuming a degree of stakeholder responsibility.

If all these uptight, fear-mongering, 'idealists' (there's nothing ideal about their position) would go out and fire 1000 rounds from a 9mm all their preconceived assumptions would disappear Guns are fun, Guns are America, I want more of my money in Guns.

This is yet another reason Harvard needs to have an undergraduate business program, so they could educate these clueless liberals... maybe then these protein starved veggie headed liberals would at least begin to understand that Harvard has no stock in any gun manufacturers, and even if they did a company like Smith and Wesson does not pay dividends so shareholders aren't getting any "blood money", and since those shares are already on the market and were issued many many years ago, you aren't helping the company to raise capital to build more factories.

Better yet, maybe these self-righteous folks could provide a list of what companies exist in the world that don't cause harm to someone or something... you can find a reason to boycott every company in existence if you look at it deep enough.

What about all that money paid to Harvard University in tuition and fees, that goes to murdering and torturing human and animal subjects in medical research experiments? What about that blood money? And what about all the pollution from the hundreds of vehicles and buildings Harvard uses in and around Cambridge and Boston? Is Harvard's carbon footprint larger than Al Gore's? How many babies does Harvard kill in a year?

Torturing human subject? What have you been smoking? As for animals, they are animals... if saving humans requires someone to tap dance on the puppies and kittens so be it... if you want to worry about "carbon footprints" and all that liberal tripe then consider the fact that your very existence is creating pollution, from thing you eat or drink, from flipping on a light switch... So if you are so worried about the mythical "carbon footprint" why haven't you killed yourself to save the planet?

Sounds like solid public policy. Go directly to the John Fitzgerald Kennedy School of Government, where your undiscovered talent will be rewarded with a fellowship.

Does the HUPD carry guns made by these manufacturers? Probably. What's the next step, taking the guns away from the campus cops? Someone should think this through....

"What's the next step, taking the guns away from the campus cops?" Yes, and then take the guns from the Cambridge police and every police officer in the country. But first the FBI. Enough intimidation by those bullies with guns. Civilians are not safe with all of those guns. Who wants to buy a bullet proof vest? Anyone?

Menckenlite, please stop drinking the bong water... it is not doing you any good; you sound like paranoid old kook, or a "prepper."

Mayor Bloomberg and others want to remove guns from citizens. Why not take them from the police too? They are only human, at least they claim to be. My arguments respond to the liberal nonsense that masquerade as public policy.

Imagine the Menckenlite's world, in which only the citizen militia is armed. It'd be a Ron Paul wonderland complete with christian taliban religious theocracy, private-sector judges, and no more of those pesky queers and jews.

Ron Paul joins the ACLU the leading light of liberal policy makers. For critics aiding and abetting terror groups, perhaps an Eric Holder approved drone should take a closer look.

Hey, ML;
Some Dunster House twit's been posting smack under my name. (see above) I appreciate your patience, and your many posts. Regards, J.P.

Saw you comments about identity theft. If Dean Smith can hack the emails of deans why not stop identity theft on this site? Shows priorities, image is all important.

harvard should just give away all it' money to yale. then they will have no money left and nobody will have to try and attach there rules to how it is invested. no money...no problem !!

Give some to Columbia for embarrassment on the basketball court.

Didn't Columbia beat us...

Columbia beat Harvard until the last seconds of the game according to the Crimson.

"...any amount of money going to gunmakers is symbolic of support for the industry." Would it not be a trifle "ungrateful" of us to the industry which allows us to very effectively deter most criminality, keep in check the incipient totalitarian impulses of our "leaders" in Washington D.C., and productively enjoy traditionally American-embraced outdoor pursuits such as hunting and competitive shooting which help to foster popular awareness of habitat as well as urbanization issues which affect wildlife and humans both -- by allowing weasel-like Crimson editorialist junior-grade snake-oil merchants to convince us that our traditions and security and intimacy with our natural environment is worthless? What a bunch of crybaby yellow-bellies.

~~COUNTERFEIT ALERT! COUNTERFEIT ALERT!~~

To all concerned, some nefarious individual or group of individuals is posting comments in my name in order to limit my first amendment privileges or possibly libel my character. I have sent many emails to the Crimson staff, whom I disparage often in my posts, to enact measures to rescind the posting privileges of those who use my name. I say this despite the fact that I have no real right to the exclusive use of my name, even though it may or may not be my real name, and that four identity verification options are kindly offered right next to the space where I click 'post'.

Dear Concerned, I implore you to take what I might or might not say with a grain of salt. Since I cannot be troubled to register and because I care oh-so-dearly about the reputation of my online presence at a newspaper for a university with which I have no affiliation, the words you see coming from 'me' may not be my words.

The true question, concerned readers, is: what does it mean to be 'Jonathan Pulliam'? I believe that we are all a little bit 'Jonathan Pulliam'; we all struggle for attention in fora and social circles to which we don't really belong. We all want to be recognized for our wit and intelligence by the only institution of merit in our great nation.

Friends, enemies, fellow 'Jonathan Pulliams', I ask you now to all adopt the mask of 'Jonathan Pulliam'. Post only in my name, so that we may all come together, despite our differences and embody the true spirit of 'Jonathan Pulliam'.

I love you.

Torque, get back on your meds. J.P.

The Rime "Sophomoric Douch-bag".
(apologies to Sr. S.Taylor Coleridge)

The gaylord "Torque" alongside came
And said that it was "nice":
"Equation solved, my throbbing gun..."
Quoth he, "...did throbbeth thrice."

Regards, J.P. ( o verdadeiro )

Why do you keep calling me a gaylord? Unlike you I am not a homophobic prick, so I am not offended in the slightest. Aren't you embarrassed to be openly broadcasting anti-gay sentiment online in your own name? It's beyond me why you continue posting on our f%$#&;% student newspaper no matter how clear we make it that your presence is not desired and your homophobic comments will not be tolerated.

I would want to be Jonathan Pulluam. Too ,many people would find me annoying.

All your houses are belong to us.

Isn't this the logical next step after making the endowment restrict itself to "sustainable, responsible" investments? First we have "fossil free Harvard" (no endowment investments in traditional energy companies, just for starters). Now it's good-bye to endowment investments in firearm manufacturers. Next should be a ban on housing companies that build homes on virgin land and/or do not distribute their construction over a sufficiently diverse (hey, a magic word!) range of housing affordability and/or eschew "urban" housing and/or don't employ sufficiently "green" building methods. Companies that engage in "anti-union" activities, such as promoting alternatives to standard public schools, should also be verboten to the endowment. No more stock of food companies that promote obesity. And, of course, every company in the endowment should have to prove that it's workforce is adequately "diverse" when it comes to ethnic and religious "diversity." Companies doing business in countries having policies that are not in the global public interest should also be out. The endowment should obviously not hold an investment in any bank or financial company that finances or invests in any company in which the endowment could not itself invest. And on and on and on and on ....

Once all these visionary parameters are imposed on the endowment it's management will become much simpler and cheaper, since there will be almost no permitted investments. The HMC managers' task will pretty much be limited to running down the list of parameters for every proposed investment to find the reason why it's disallowed. Think of the economies that will yield for HMC operations!

Of course, the size and returns of the endowment will shrivel as a result of all that "vision." But what's that compared to knowing that its invested in the (bankrupt) future! Wheeeeee!

Responsible investment involves much beyond just divestment, which is a last-resort tactic for especially egregious categories of assets only, such as companies profiting from regimes involved in apartheid and genocide, or manufacturers of tobacco and assault weapons. Other practices are active engagement with managements, filing of shareholder resolutions, and preferential selection of societally and environmentally beneficial enterprises and funds, or management of directly-owned assets according to a set of responsible principles. All can be accomplished without significantly detracting from financial returns, as a long roster of studies as well as demonstrated success by institutional investors such as pension funds has amply shown. See Responsible Investment at Harvard's site for more information.

This is an embarrassment. I know Nicole personally, and I'm surprised she's putting her name on this. It's so uninformed; it's not like her at all.

However, she is The Crimson. She is the best of our College [?] and represents The College, student thought, and viewpoint. Personally, that worries me.

In what way does "Nicole is involved with The Crimson" imply "She is the best of our college?" It's just a bloody extracurricular, and a relatively non-exclusive one at that.

If alternative investments can be found, there is nothing wrong with signaling disapproval of an industry whose lobbyists are the main reason why gun control is so poor in this country and why there will be another Sandy Hook, and another, and another.

If you think that's so, then perhaps it's you who has not sufficiently looked into the issue.

I would think that especially the young women of Harvard would be up in arms about

the unpunished sexual assaults occurring on your campus. These attacks are real and by definition harmful to students whereas the ownership of index funds which may or may not own stock of a gun manufacturer has only a perceived harm.

Come on students; put your angst where it can do some real good instead of against some "cause" which may even harm the students and Harvard.

Activists are in fact working on both issues.

“Stopping gun violence should be a critical concern for the University, and severing financial ties with these companies is a good first step,” he said.

Right, and stopping drunk driving should be a critical concern for the University and severing ties with these booze and car manufacturers is a good first step.

If assault weapons were as ubiquitous as alcoholic beverages, then perhaps your comparison would make sense, but we'd have much worse problems than the odd drunk driver in that case.