Dear Swarthmore Community Members, 

On Monday, the nine individuals who faced misdemeanor trespassing charges stemming from the Spring 2025 multi-day encampment on campus pleaded no contest to a lesser charge of disorderly conduct. As a result, the group, which includes one Swarthmore student, a former student, and seven individuals unaffiliated with the College, agreed to each perform eight hours of community service and pay for court costs.

I find no solace in the outcome of this case; to the contrary, I, like many of you, am deeply saddened by the whole ordeal. I hope that the conclusion of these proceedings opens the door to dialogue that allows us to find common ground.

Doing so will be challenging and complicated by the misinformation and disinformation about the circumstances of this case that continue to circulate. I know members of the community continue to hold different views about my decision to seek support from local law enforcement to end the encampment. My primary obligation is the safety and well-being of the campus community, and I acted in that interest. But I appreciate that, while this case is closed, the conversations will continue. These conversations must be grounded in fact. To that end, we’ve summarized what took place on the College’s website.

Freedom of Expression

I also want to take this opportunity to reaffirm something I know all Swarthmoreans are committed to, if not passionate about: the importance of free expression and the right to engage in peaceful protest and dissent. Nothing about that commitment has changed. While some have used this case to accuse the College of suppressing free expression, the facts belie this assertion. Our campus has experienced more than 100 incidents of activism and protest over the past two and a half years, and the vast majority have gone uninterrupted, with no interference by the College. These incidents include rallies outside Parrish Hall, marches across campus, chalkings, vigils, and other efforts. The College intervened only in the very few cases where individuals or groups breached the policies and practices that all of us agree to abide by when we choose to join this community. 

Managing our Endowment and Divestment

I cannot say with certainty what these individuals hoped to accomplish by pushing this situation to the brink of a criminal trial. Through social media and other channels, they have demanded, among other things, that we disclose our investments and divest from Cisco, a global technology company. For various reasons, Swarthmore, much like our peer institutions, does not disclose specific investment strategies and information, and I do not intend to debate the merits of any one company. But I do want to take this opportunity to address how our endowment is managed and these regular calls for divestment broadly.

The strength of our endowment is critical to supporting virtually everything we do; everyone at the College benefits from the endowment, even those who criticize it. The endowment accounts for 60% of our operating budget each year. It allows us to practice need-blind admissions and meet the full determined financial need of every Swarthmore student, with an average financial aid package of more than $75,000 per student, per year. It enabled us to introduce the Swarthmore Tuition Guarantee. It supports the research, teaching, and co-curricular activities that define a Swarthmore education. We must steward these resources carefully to ensure they will support our students, faculty, and staff in perpetuity. That is why the Board of Managers maintains an investment policy that prioritizes the best long-term financial results. Protecting the endowment is itself an expression of our commitment to the College's mission.

The College has no direct holdings in companies such as Cisco. Rather, we invest in fund managers who control complex collections of pooled funds, which are made up of hundreds of individual companies. We have a robust screening process for selecting managers that takes into account whether their overall investment approach aligns with our mission. But we do not control the investment guidelines of the managers we ultimately select; we cannot pick and choose which companies are in their funds.

In this instance, of the more than 100 funds that make up our endowment, each of which includes hundreds of individual companies, only two include Cisco, and it is not a core holding in either. We estimate that Cisco accounts for roughly 0.05%, or one-twentieth of one percent, of our total endowment value. It would be a similar story for any number of companies activists might target. To completely divest from a specific company with such a small position within the endowment would require the College to end long-standing partnerships with fund managers who have significantly contributed to our ability to carry out our mission. It would erode the support the endowment provides to the campus community today and for future generations of students, faculty, and staff members.  

Again, my point is not to engage in a debate about a specific company, but to demonstrate that these calls for divestment are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the endowment and how it works. 

Moving Forward 

I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about how our community can move forward from this moment. The place to which I return, and where I find inspiration and optimism, is our shared mission. We are an educational institution grounded in rigorous intellectual inquiry, and we learn and grow, in part, by grappling with hard questions, difficult experiences, and ideas with which we might not always agree. I am confident that if we approach this moment with honesty, compassion, a commitment to deep listening and genuine care for one another, we will find our way through it. 

Sincerely, 

Valerie Smith
President
Roy J. and Linda G. Shanker Presidential Chair