Vote, Voices and Verdicts: Boston University Referendum Sparks Debate, Exacerbating an Already Prominent Student Divide

Boston University Students protesting for divestment outside of Marsh Chapel. Picture captured by Laura Haefeli

In early 2025, Boston University was at the center of a heated campus debate over ethical investing, student activism, and free speech. Starting in early February, BU students participated in a secure, student government-organized referendum that asked fellow students whether or not they believed that the University should disclose, divest, and reinvest its endowment away from companies that were held liable for implicated human rights violations, mostly regarding the Middle East and the current Israel-Palestine conflict. 

This student voting period on the referendum began on Wednesday, Feb. 5, at 11:30 a.m. It ended on Monday, Feb. 10 at 5 p.m. The vote asked students three questions: “Should Boston University disclose the total makeup of its investment portfolio through its annual report? Should Boston University divest from companies complicit in human rights violations, including military weapons contractors arming Israel? Boston University’s mission statement declares that ‘higher education should be accessible to all. Given the destruction of all universities in Gaza, should BU re-invest its funds in Palestinian students and scholars?”’

Amidst this voting, some organizations such as the Quinobequin Student Front For Palestine shared posts on social media stating, “We now call on the students to VOTE YES on all three questions this Wednesday, demanding that BU ends its complicity and collaboration with the Zionist entity!” On the other hand, organizations like Boston University’s “Jewish on Campus” urged students not to vote in the referendum, claiming that the BDS  (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions)  movement works to end international support for Israel's oppression of Palestinians.

They claim that this movement “…was established with the ultimate aim of eliminating Israel as a Jewish state and replacing it with a single Palestinian state from the river to the sea, which does not promote peace.” Another Jewish organization on campus, Hillel, shared a similar perspective, telling students not to vote, stating that “It's anti-democratic. It's antisemitic. It's loaded with lies. It’s divisive.” 

The gravity of these statements proved to create a greater divide between the already segregated groups. Once votes were in, students began to question the votes' honesty, integrity, and accuracy. The original vote in early February, which garnered over 2,800 responses, was ultimately nullified due to concerns about survey integrity—participants were not required to use BU emails and could vote multiple times. BU SJP and the Young Democratic Socialists of America had taken on the responsibility of administering the vote after the University allegedly refused to send an email about the referendum or provide access to secure tools. Critics of the initial referendum, including Jewish students and organizations like BU Hillel, accused the Student Government of overlooking antisemitism concerns and allowing biased procedures that limited dissent. Meanwhile, SJP defended the vote as a democratic process focused on ethical investment, not an attack on any community.

Ultimately, a second vote was taken later in the month on Feb. 19, closing Feb. 26. The results found that over 90% of the 1,726 participants voted in favor of the proposals, signaling overwhelming student support for divestment. However, the vote’s impact was diminished by the University’s administration and Board of Trustees who had already made it clear that BU’s endowment would not be used as a platform for political debate. 

The controversy peaked when BU’s Board of Trustees formally rejected two divestment petitions, citing a need to preserve the endowment from political entanglement. President Melissa Gilliam stated that no further divestment requests would be considered and emphasized the importance of fostering respectful political discourse outside of financial policy. This decision, expedited due to heightened campus tensions, added frustration among students who felt their concerns were being ignored. While President Gilliam acknowledged the value of open dialogue and academic freedom, many student activists saw the move as a dismissal of advocacy efforts. 

The divestment debate at Boston University is not without precedent. The University has previously rejected divestment from firearms manufacturers,  agreed to withdraw from Sudan-linked companies in 2006 and Fossil Fuel Extractors in 2016 after prolonged advocacy. Despite the precedent for student-led influence, BU's firm stance against divesting due to the Israel-Palestine conflict reflects a broader national and global conversation around the intersection of politics, finance, and institutional responsibility. This disconnect between student voices and institutional decisions sparked widespread frustration and reignited long-standing tensions around campus activism and inclusion.

As the University maintains its decision, SJP and its allies continue to push for accountability, asserting that the referendum represents a clear mandate from the student body. At the same time, concerns about antisemitism and campus inclusivity persist, with some students arguing that the discourse around divestment has created a hostile environment. The controversy underscores student activism’s complex and emotionally charged nature today, especially in a context where global conflicts reverberate deeply within academic communities. Whether or not BU reconsiders its policies, the referendum has left a lasting impact on campus dynamics, prompting urgent questions about representation, institutional power, and the role of higher education in addressing social justice.