Hopkins has a $2.2 billion endowment made up of a wide variety of trusts, according to the Investment Office.
How that money is invested has a significant impact on the daily and long-term operation of the University, in terms of how much money is available to spend each year.
It can have an arguably greater influence on society as a whole depending on where the University decides to invest its funds.
Socially responsible investing (also known as SRI) can help the environment and society without hurting the investor, according to Mike Wyman, ex-treasurer of the Green Party of California and current board member of Progressive Asset Management, a brokerage firm which specializes in SRI.
"Socially responsible investing is investing with a conscience," Wyman, who is currently the Green candidate for Attorney General in California, said.
"It's basically a choice -- you put your money where your conscience, your religious convictions or your politics are -- and that means two things ... not investing in ventures whose activities you disapprove of and placing your investments in ventures whose activities you approve of."
Columbia, Harvard, Stanford and Yale are among the various colleges and universities to have committees on socially responsible investing, according to the SRI committee at Barnard College.
While Hopkins may invest part of its endowment in a socially responsible way, there are understandable concerns about doing so entirely, including a potential loss of profits necessary to maintain the University and perhaps the stipulation of investment in a particular corporation inherent in some University trusts or gifts of stock.
The first concern, at least, is not a likely problem according to Wyman, who has personally practiced SRI for a number of years.
"On an annualized basis, the return on investments for socially responsible investment is competitive and comparable with other types of investments," he said.
"Of course you can't guarantee going forward any particular percentage, but they certainly are affordable," he added.
So why aren't more institutions, such as Hopkins, investing in an entirely socially responsible manner?
Well, for one, it may be difficult to ascertain what sort of investments are socially responsible in the first place, or to decide what's the "right" vote for an institution to make as a corporate shareholder.
That's why committees on SRI like those started at Harvard and Yale are important.
There's also the widespread problem of sheer ignorance regarding SRI, according to Wyman.
"An increasing number of people are [investing in a socially responsible manner] but not all investors know that there are such options available," he said.
An example of Hopkins being proactive in terms of socially responsible investing came in the early 1990s, when the University began to divest itself of shares in tobacco companies, according to a report issued by the Investor Responsibility Research Center.
Wyman also believes Hopkins could serve as a positive example to other educational institutions.
"If a university like Hopkins was to look outward, adopt a socially responsible investment approach, publicize it and also note in the course of events that the return on that socially screened investment policy was ample and sufficient to fulfill their investment goals, then other universities might think, `Oh, wow, no harm no foul -- we can do socially responsible investing and still make the money we need!'"
Kathryn J. Crecelius, the chief investment officer at the Office of Investment Management for Hopkins, was unavailable for comment.
While it may seem to be, socially responsible investing is by no means a science. It takes a committee of diligent, caring individuals to investigate the issues and determine the proper course of action in a myriad of possible dilemmas.
