The Debate within Unitarian Universalism Over the Power of Divesting to Address Environmental Justice Issues

by Ian Evans

Unitarian Universalism is a complex faith. We make no demands that followers hold any  particular beliefs or religion, instead we ask them to commit to Seven Principles and live through  them. The First Principle, “The inherent worth and dignity of every person,” and the Seventh  Principle, “Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part,” are being  put to the test in a push-and-pull over how we handle our finances. Specifically, the debate is over  divestment and the viability of shareholder activism. This debate is happening now because of the  recent Responsive Resolution passed at the Unitarian Universalist 2021 General Assembly urging  the Unitarian Universalist Common Endowment Fund (UUCEF) to “immediately and completely  divest its holdings from financial institutions currently funding the Line 3 pipeline, including JP  Morgan & Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Citigroup, and RBC.”¹ 

How and when this Responsive Resolution should be implemented is currently the subject of ongoing discussions between the UUCEF, the Socially Responsible Investment Committee (SRI), and the young adult caucus (ages 18-35) who put the resolution forward.² Regarding my own stance, I will not pretend to be neutral—I spoke publicly in favor of the resolution at the General Assembly and in meetings with the UUCEF afterwards. However, I am writing this report as a way of looking at both the UUCEF’s position and the young adult’s arguments. My hope is that this can serve as a way for new people in the discussion to get quickly caught up on the background of the situation, a primer on the state of UUCEF investments, and as an analysis of opposing points of view from the young adults and the UUCEF.  CONTINUE READING HERE