After the series of coffee listening sessions hosted by the Ad Hoc Committee on Investments and Responsibility (ACIR) on Wednesday and Thursday, Bowdoin students reported leaving the meetings with a wide range of feelings—both about the purpose of the committee as a whole as well as the structure of the listening sessions themselves.

These sessions represent the first major public action by the ACIR, which was formed in early September by President Safa Zaki to respond to the concerns about the College’s investment strategies raised by the “Bowdoin Solidarity Referendum” passed last May. The referendum, introduced by Bowdoin’s Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), called for the College to disclose its investments in arms manufacturing.

During each of the sessions, which were first announced in a campus-wide email last Monday, students, faculty and staff were split into individual rooms and accompanied by several members of the ad hoc committee. Everyone in attendance was given an opportunity to voice their opinion, while the committee members listened and took notes.

Although students reported slightly different approaches in each session, committee members generally moved participants away from conversations or debates between the group and frequently declined to answer questions. Many students stated a desire to learn more about the specific work of the committee.

“I was hoping to figure out what stage of their decision-making process they were at right now—apparently they’re simply listening to people, and they didn’t really let on what they’re internally thinking about.… [But] I was happy that they were actually interested in what we were saying,” Alessandro Carelli ’26, who attended the first session on Wednesday afternoon, said.

Yusur Jasim ’25 echoed this interest in learning more about the ACIR but, unlike Carelli, was frustrated with the format of the sessions and the communication surrounding it.

“The description of the committee and the email that we were sent was really vague, but I at least expected some sort of conversation … because there’s a lot of things that are left unanswered,” Jasim said. “I struggle to understand the purpose of this committee, and they did not make their purpose clear.”

“It was almost like talking into a void,” Elena Ardell ’26 said.

Olivia Kenney ’25, one of the leaders of SJP, mentioned that they see the ACIR’s reluctance to answer questions during the sessions as part of a general lack of transparency in the College’s response to the referendum.

“This is a precedent that the College has set in their response to the referendum,” Kenney said. “I thought that at the very least these sessions would be conversations, and we would have the opportunity to have any type of clarification on the many open ends left around the committee, including questions like, ‘How were the decisions made for the individuals who are on the committee?’”

Mary Hogan Preusse ’90, a member of the Board of Trustees and the chair of the ACIR, emphasized the importance that understanding campus opinion holds for the committee—and that the listening sessions were designed to fulfill that purpose.

“[This process] will benefit enormously from soliciting and understanding the views and different perspectives of students, faculty and staff before we consult with experts, look carefully at past practices and consider the relevance of those practices today,” Preusse wrote in an email to the Orient.

Preusse did acknowledge that the ACIR had received a mixed response from participants about the separation of students, faculty and staff into different groups and plans to offer an alternative structure in the next set of listening sessions in November.

“While we heard from some participants that they liked the separate sessions, we also heard feedback that some people would prefer a mixed cohort. So, both types will be offered with advance and same-day registration in November,” Preusse wrote.

Students also voiced other complaints about the ways the groups were structured. Kenney argued that the in-person listening sessions offer a less reliable assessment of the student body than the referendum—which was conducted anonymously.

“I think part of the reason why students could engage with something like the referendum is [that they weren’t] required to confront their administrators with their opinions on Palestine and the school’s investment policies,” Kenney said. “In our [listening session], there was a trustee…. There are people who have powerful positions at Bowdoin in these rooms.”

Carelli, on the other hand, said he found the listening sessions attracted students who had strong negative opinions about the College’s response to the referendum, resulting in an inaccurate representation of campus opinion.

“I feel that this format tends to be really unrepresentative, especially when there’s a group on campus that has a clear position on this and can tell students to go and show up to these sessions,” he said. “Everybody just echoed each other’s opinion.… [That] may give the committee the wrong picture of the student body.”

Looking forward, Preusse offered a broad outline of the ACIR’s next steps.

“Notes from all the sessions will be shared with the full committee and will inform our conversations and deliberations as we consult with experts, review past practices and develop a set of recommendations for the Board of Trustees,” Preusse wrote.

As the process moves forward, however, some students hope future ACIR events will offer more opportunities for open discussion and provide more information about the committee itself.

“If other listening sessions happen, I would like the structure to be different. I would like our questions to be answered. I would like for there to be some sort of conversation,” Jasim said. “And again, I think the first step is telling us why the committee is there.”