Hampshire College first U.S. university to divest from Israeli occupation

I soundly agree with your last two paragraphs.

When the school first divested from the Apartheid in '77 it made similar claims to distance itself and de-politicize the decision. Now, thirty two years later if you flip through an admissions catalogue you'll see that the school proudly acknowledges it's divestment. The administration is trying to have its' cake and eat it too. Eventually, when they realize that it's beneficial to the school's image and admissions numbers they'll properly own it.

It's interesting to notice that no matter how many times it's pointed out that the administration of Hampshire College has vigorously denied that this decision has anything to do with Israel, that divestment supporters continue to simply ignore this clearly verifiable truth and blithely congratulate the university for doing something it has stated in no uncertain terms that it did NOT do.

This strange behavior is understandable if you realize that divestment supporters are interested only in tricking an institution - any institution - into taking an action that they can portray as being in lock step with their agenda: to tie the legacy of Hampshire College (in this case) to their narrow, partisan message. This mission alone is what is important to them, with truth and the reputation of places like Hampshire simply irrelevant to their single-minded agenda.

Per Jon's comment, institutions, particularly universities, often deny that protest had anything to do with a particular decision. When I was in college, at Brown University many years ago for example, the university revoked the charters of the worst fraternities on campus. That happened just days after a group of women included that as a demand in a remarkable five hour speakout by campus women, but the university held firm that the protest and the revoked charters had nothing to do with each other. So, when institutions try to dismiss protest as effective, who is doing the "tricking?"

Interesting comments, Jon. If we were to anthropomorphise this "institution" into a thinking, singly-autonomous entity with its own notion of "truth," then we begin to further erase the multiple principles and values that made it what it was. However, colleges and universities are soundly SPACES: places where ideas have often been exchanged, dialogue has been supported, and lastly, where IMAGE has been built, on representing a mission that coincides with its community.

Hampshire has most definitely been built on its image and value in social responsibility; those purported traits have been called upon by activists and organizers who not only possess one "partisan" agenda, but a wealth of ideas and values that strive to make it a more responsible, accountable, and PRODUCTIVE institution.

A blithe congratulation is actually a need to acknowledge the action and energy of students and others who have sweated to change a place for the better, and for the hope that it will echo throughout the rest of the world. To expect our institutions of higher learning to be anything LESS, vacuous spaces where the myth meritocracy reigns, would be a failure on our part for "truth."
But if universities were "people," then maybe Hampshire would be afraid of the crowd.