When Money Trumps Morals

Fidelity Investments has officially decreased its U.S. holdings in PetroChina, one of the most abhorrent oil companies fueling the Sudan genocide. But their spokeswoman, Anne Crowley, made sure to point out that this had nothing to do with pressure put on Fidelity by human rights groups the world over.

Said Crowley, “Our funds have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the financial interests of their investors, in keeping with the investment policies for each fund. This is not Fidelity investing its own money, this is Fidelity investing the money of millions of people." The situation in Darfur, she said, "is a matter to be properly resolved by the governments of the world and the United Nations. And we truly hope they will do what is right.”

That’s depressing. Fidelity finally did something right – really right. They pulled their funds out of a morally bankrupt company, but were quick to point out that it had nothing to do with moral reasons. It was, as they say, purely financial. (Strange then, that it was only U.S holdings that were removed -- God forbid that Fidelity set a divestment precedent, and actually has to, I dunno, act next time there is a massive genocide).

And, while they were making purely financial decisions, they were also strong-arming CNN and Newsweek from running negative ads from the Save Darfur coalition encouraging people to pull funds from Fidelity. Not only are they making "purely financial" decisions, regardless of the ongoing genocide in Darfur, they are pressuring the Fourth Estate from letting people know about it. I’m not sure which is more distressing.

A couple of weeks ago, in the Boston Globe, columnist Joan Vennochi ended her powerful Op-Ed with the following statement: “Sometimes, morality does trump money making, even if it kills to admit it.” Would it kill Fidelity to admit that in the case of the Darfur genocide, morality should in fact trump money making? Where do we draw the line between profits and basic humanity?