EDITORIAL & OPINION: Full disclosure is necessary

Accountability is important, which is why Penn should disclose its stock holdings. How odd, then, that Penn thinks it can pretend to be politically insignificant simply by refusing to disclose the contents of its investment portfolio. Penn is, of course, well aware that an announcement of ownership is a statement in its own right. Even were the University to remain completely silent, such passivity always translates into a form of support for one side in any dispute. But it is irresponsible to attempt to avoid the issue altogether by refusing to disclose whether or not the University owns a given stock. Penn has a responsibility to the members of its community and to all those who have helped build the endowment over the years. And ultimately, Penn should be accountable for its own decisions. Of course, in broad terms, the University is quite explicit about its investment strategy: investment decisions are entirely profit-driven except in extreme cases. And it bears repetition that we are not per se opposed to such a policy -- this editorial is not intended to pass judgement on whether the University should have holdings in companies in controversial industries or those with factories in countries with controversial governments. Instead, we are advocating disclosure and accountability. In 1987, Penn divested holdings totalling $35 million in companies with investments in South Africa. Indeed, until the University shifted portfolio managers in 1995, Penn also did not invest in tobacco companies. Both policies were explicitly in place for non-financial reasons. And in both cases, Penn did not shy away from discussing its holdings. But in 1995, Penn handed over management of its investment portfolio to eight outside managers, and stopped commenting on its stock holdings. Penn's current policy reflects a see-no-evil, hear-no-evil attitude to the surrounding world -- and that is hardly appropriate for an institution of Penn's size and stature.