1 hour ago
1
Cambridge academics have accused the university of “maximal obfuscation” in a row over its £4bn investment fund and how it profits from investing in arms manufacturers.
The university’s governing body is expected to meet on Monday to consider a report on its financial ties to the defence sector, but some senior staff have said investments cannot be properly scrutinised because the institution has not been transparent about the companies involved.
The focus of Monday’s discussions will be the university’s endowment fund, worth about £4.2bn. The fund was set up to ensure the organisation’s long-term financial security and is managed by the University of Cambridge Investment Management Limited (UCIM), a private company owned by the university.
The company operates as a “fund of funds” – a complex financial structure that means its money is spread across a wide range of sectors and overseen by an investment manager.
The fund was thrown into the spotlight after students staged a pro-Palestine encampment outside King’s College in 2024, demanding that the university sever any financial ties with Israel. The students agreed to disband the encampment when the university committed to reviewing its links to the arms and defence industry.
UCIM told a working group established to examine its financial interests that it has no direct investments in weapons. However, it admitted that a small proportion of its investments – about 1.7% – are held in the “aerospace and defence” sector. So far, it has refused to reveal which companies these investments relate to.
An open letter shared by the university’s students’ union claimed this could mean up to £70m is invested in arms manufacturers.
Jason Scott Warren, an English professor, said: “As they did when they were pressed to divest from fossil fuels some years ago, the university’s investment managers are claiming that their ‘fund of funds’ model will not allow them to reveal which companies they invest in or to perform even the most commonplace forms of ethical screening.
“The structures that have been set up around the endowment are clearly designed to create maximal obfuscation and to prevent any troublesome democratic interference with the technocratic decisions of the university administration.”
Cambridge’s university council – which includes vice-chancellor Deborah Prentice, some college heads and elected staff and students – will discuss a report commissioned after calls to pull investments from the arms industry, compiled by the working group.
The working group expressed frustration at the fact it did not receive a complete list of the companies the fund invested in, saying: “We acknowledge the commercial importance of confidentiality, but the fact that the members of the working group do not know the extent of the university’s investments in companies which manufacture weapons has made the formulation of our recommendations significantly more difficult.”
Its members are understood to have been divided on how the fund should approach investments involving arms manufacturers. Some opposed arms divestment, but suggested a transparency report – including details of the companies involved – should be produced if these investments exceed 1% of the fund.
Others suggested a policy of limiting arms investments so they remain below 1% of the fund at all times. Another section of the group thought the fund should not invest in any company producing arms. This tallies with the position of the students’ union, which has been calling on students to ask members of the council to push for full arms divestment.
Mónica Moreno Figueroa, a sociology professor, said: “The University of Cambridge has an ethical obligation to ensure that its investments do not contribute – directly or indirectly – to genocide, militarised violence, ethnic cleansing, and collective punishment. Continued financial ties to the arms industry render the university institutionally complicit in these harms.”
Peach Hoyle, a postgraduate student and pro-Palestine campaigner, said: “Financial transparency and divestment are essential steps if this university wants to be accountable to its students, staff and community, rather than corporate interests and government agendas.”
However, other academics have said they support the fund investing in the defence sector given the UK’s precarious national security situation.
Richard Penty, an engineering professor, said: “The investment fund does not invest in weapons illegal under English law. The UK needs to be able to defend itself, so the idea that the university should turn its back on UK national security, particularly at a time of increased global turmoil, is dangerous and unethical.”
The report’s authors said they did not think investments in arms companies contradicted Cambridge’s “charitable purposes” but said the university should “have regard to ethical considerations”. Cambridge University declined to comment.
