Last May, the “Bowdoin Solidarity Referendum” was passed with a 66.84 percent supermajority of the 1,366 students who voted. The referendum—spearheaded by Bowdoin Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP)—asked the College to take an institutional stand against the scholasticide in Gaza, to create enhanced transparency and accountability for the endowment and to refrain from future investment in funds that invest in certain arms manufacturers.

Upon the announcement of the results of the referendum, President Safa Zaki reiterated her decision not to make a public statement regarding the scholasticide in Gaza but said that the Board of Trustees would examine the endowment-related demands. Last month, she announced the creation of an ad hoc committee that “will present their recommendations to the board, which, under the bylaws of the College, is responsible for establishing investment policy.”

This week, the Ad Hoc Committee on Investments and Responsibility began meeting with students, faculty and staff as it considers its recommendation to the Board of Trustees regarding the College’s management of its investments. The structures of this committee and the experiences of students at the sessions suggest a concerning lack of transparency and call into question whether the College intends to seriously consider the attitudes of community members.

The ad hoc committee meetings have left students with lingering questions. Those who sign up for the meetings are met with blunt restrictions—questions cannot be asked about the committee’s work and meetings were originally split up, with faculty, staff and students all divided into separate groups. Although the committee sought to acknowledge multiple perspectives, it has failed to provide a platform for all voices and exists within an environment easily subjected to power dynamics between students and committee members, some of whom are high-ranking College officials.

These listening sessions can only accommodate a small fraction of the student body, particularly given the closing of registration earlier this week. In contrast, nearly 70 percent of students voted in last spring’s referendum that clearly articulated specific stances related to these investments. Points of view from Zaki, SJP leaders and students who opposed the referendum were offered in advance of voting, and a supermajority approval was achieved. These listening sessions will not be able to capture the perspectives of the student body on College investment more accurately than the referendum and the past year of student protest. They are certainly less transparent.

Bowdoin students deserve to be involved in decisions surrounding the College’s investments and are working hard to make their voices heard. The ad hoc committee’s listening sessions are not allowing students to do so. We believe this process is actually disempowering students, asking them to provide feedback to a committee with ambiguous practices and intentions.

The vague purpose of the committee and its flawed practices in early listening sessions have damaged our trust in the administration’s commitment to listen to our voices on this issue.  We demand transparency. Going forward, we ask that the ad hoc committee publish a report of any evaluation it makes based on conversations with students, faculty and staff. A report that states how community members’ voices were taken into consideration will hold the committee accountable. The ability to ask questions would also be helpful in building trust.

We believe it is important that student’s opinions are documented and passed along to the board, and that this process is made public. This committee cannot claim to be listening to community members without further transparency.

This editorial represents the majority view of the Editorial Board, which is comprised of Catalina Escobedo, Shawn Jiminez, John Schubert, Talia Traskos-Hart, Kristen Kinzler and Vaughn Vial.