In AY 2013-14, the College undertook a study of divestment and the trustees accepted a recommendation from the Divestment Task Force (DTF) against divestment. However, in the discussion of other related recommendations from the DTF, the trustees asserted that Skidmore “does not believe it can accept the general principle that there is or should be a fundamental linkage between Skidmore's investment portfolio and its institutional values.” The trustees also argued,

were the Board to accept a blanket statement of linkage between our values and investment strategy, it would generate expectations for the College to address a broad range of such present and future social issues in its ongoing investment decision-making. In other words, the Board would be consenting to investigate and adjudicate an indefinitely large range of such claims in the future. It is far from evident how either the Board or the Administration could reasonably do so. In sum, it is simply not clear how any Investment Committee or Board of Trustees, present or future, could function under the weight of such a general mandate.

At the May 2017 faculty meeting, the faculty formally asked the President to “form
a study group in the fall of 2017 to explore ways the College could align our institutional values with our investment strategies” and to make recommendations to the Board of Trustees, the faculty, and the Skidmore community by the conclusion of the AY 2017-2018.

In response to that request, the Dean of the Faculty/Vice President for Academic Affairs, the Faculty Executive Committee (FEC), and the Student Government Association (SGA) will convene a working group made up of faculty, staff, and student representatives to consider an “investment policy that reflects the moral, fiscal, and political challenges of informed, responsible institutional citizenship.”

The working group will consider questions such as:

• Can the College’s investment policy support its broad educational mission and also reflect the specific part of the mission identified above? Is the College’s investment policy relevant to the institution’s capacity to model and educate students in the animating principles of informed responsible citizenship?

• Can Skidmore manage the tension between investment return and environmental and social responsibility better or more creatively? What would it mean to do so? Is this ethical challenge an opportunity worthy of institutional resources and effort?
  Does every ethical issue merit the same treatment, or is climate change a unique challenge distinguishable in principle from other ethical concerns?

• Are there alternative approaches to endowment management that would increase Skidmore’s capacity for institutional moral agency through increased active ownership, positive Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) screening, or impact investing? For example, could Skidmore join with other not-for-profit organizations to develop and promote ESG and impact investing?

• Might Skidmore’s explicit rejection of any connection between values and investment policy undermine Skidmore’s standing with millennial constituents? What are the future costs of an investment approach inconsistent with the values of rising generations?

• Is environmental and socially responsible investing “political”? Is “apolitical” investing possible? Does the 2016 election, the decline of federal involvement in environmental regulation, and social/political efforts to undermine environmental protection and science require an increased level of countervailing involvement from the nonprofit sector?