Though the move came partly in response to sustained criticism from activists over their lack of say in investment decisions, it was met, somewhat ironically, with more criticism for the same reasons. 

Proponents of MSU’s divestment of endowment holdings tied to Israel promptly decried the move in public comments to the Board of Trustees as a disingenuous, "half-baked attempt" at placating them. And, they cast doubt that the new formalized process would ever bring about the Israel divestment they’d so long advocated. 

Board of Trustees Chair Kelly Tebay, in an interview late last month with The State News, did little to dispel that skepticism relating to the campus’ most immediate investment debate. However, she did present a broader optimism for the committee’s long-run effect, arguing it will help the institution’s fiduciaries better account for the feelings of the campus overall toward the ethical and social implications of their investments.

The committee "should be serious," Tebay said, adding she’ll be receptive to proposals the committee ends up presenting to the board. 

Tebay skirted a question on whether she thinks the committee will open the door for the board to consider divesting from Israel, saying she couldn’t answer as the committee has not been formed yet. 

She continued that although the establishment of the committee was a "reaction" to present concerns over Israeli investment, she thinks that "in the long-run," the committee will allow "greater opportunity for dialogue" around future campus investment concerns.  

Rather than the status quo of individual board members "sitting in the room with a group of 10 students making these decisions and coming back to the board," Tebay said the committee will allow people "that are on the ground, every day, that are working here, that are studying here," to serve as trusted mediators between students and administrators in investment discussions. 

MSU’s establishment of a committee tasked with reviewing investment proposals for "non-financial reasons" — and making non-binding recommendations to the institution’s leadership based on said proposals — follows suit of several other universities. Among them is MSU’s Big Ten peer Northwestern, which resurrected its "Advisory Committee on Responsible Investing" as one element of a compromise reached with pro-Palestinian demonstrators in April to end their "encampment" protest. 

The establishment of the committee at MSU seems to represent an extension of the sort of compromising that President Kevin Guskiewicz won plaudits for in the national press amid heated campus debate over the Israel-Hamas war. As several universities’ aggressive responses to campus encampment protests escalated tensions and violent scenes emerged, Guskiewicz was recognized as one of the few university presidents to manage peacefully engaging with protestors. 

Still, the question looms of whether the establishment of the committee will succeed in maintaining the delicate balance MSU’s leadership has struck with activists. Divestment advocates told The State News in December they were unhappy with the move, and eager to escalate disruptions. 

Two meetings between campus activists and board members that could provide some answers to that question are set for this week: On Wednesday, a coalition of pro-divestment student groups are hosting a town hall on Israel divestment, and expects four trustees to attend, according to its Instagram page; and, activists will yet again have the opportunity to present their concerns to the board (which features two brand new members) during public comments at its Friday meeting. 

Though some universities have established these committees in relation to the contemporary debate around the Israel-Hamas war, others already had them. One such university is the Ivy League’s Columbia, where encampment protests in the spring were among the most contentious in the country. 

James Applegate is a physics professor and long-time observer of campus politics at Columbia, as well as an MSU alumni. 

He said he has similar hopes to Tebay for MSU’s new investment advisory committee, and that those hopes are based on his observations of the effectiveness of Columbia’s "Advisory Committee on Socially Responsible Investing," which was formally established in 2000. 

Because faculty and students at Columbia who care deeply about "corporate responsibility," and even study it, have historically sat on the committee, Applegate said, the institution’s trustees "respect" it and have taken it "seriously."

"We’re the better for it," he said. 

While the committee has been "fairly conservative in its views," and only taken up proposals that had broad support on campus, Applegate said, it has managed to move the needle on certain investment issues. He cited, for example, the university’s trailblazing decision in 2015 to divest from private prison companies. 

That consensus criteria is a necessary component of committees like the one MSU has established, and Columbia has long had, Applegate argued.

It could, though, have disappointing implications for Israel divestment advocates on MSU’s campus. 

When Columbia’s committee received an Israel divestment proposal, it rejected it, saying it failed to "meet the broad consensus test required for consideration of divestment."