Alameda County Treasurer Henry Levy’s Jan. 10 op-ed purported to explain his rationale for divesting $32 million in Caterpillar bonds. However, his justification — rooted more in personal identity and activist influence than objective criteria — raises troubling questions.
An ethical investment policy requires consistency, transparency and universal standards. Levy’s decision to single out Caterpillar meets none of these metrics. Indeed, his choice appears to be less about principled governance and more about selectively targeting Israel in ways that undermine trust, fairness and ethical consistency.
Why was Caterpillar chosen for divestment, while other companies remain unexamined? Without clear guidelines, divestment risks becoming a political tool, wielded selectively.
Levy’s announcement about the divestment came on Dec. 10 in front of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, at the very meeting where he was tasked with drafting an ethical investment policy. Yet it is exactly this policy that will set the criteria for divestment. Rather than respecting this process, Levy preempted it by announcing the Caterpillar divestment. This raises a critical question: Did Levy act prematurely, fearing that no policy he could craft would justify such a decision?
Ethical governance demands accountability and due process. Alameda County deserves a policy that spells out clear criteria for ethical investment, ensuring decisions are grounded in public interest, not individual discretion. By circumventing this process, Levy undermined both the policy-making process and public trust.
Levy’s op-ed defending his decision focuses less on concrete evidence of harm caused by Caterpillar and more on his own personal journey and conflicting emotions. His framing makes it clear that the choice was driven by his personal struggles with his Jewish identity and relationship to Israel, struggles that he admits sharpened during the war that followed the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas massacre.
While the majority of American Jews have become more connected to Israel and Jewish tradition since Oct. 7, it is well documented that others have instead grown more alienated. Levy’s personal process reflects a serious and complex one unfolding in the larger American Jewish community. The proper place for this process to unfold is in J., for example, not in the balance books of Alameda County.
Public officials are entrusted with making decisions based on the needs and values of the communities they serve — not their personal narratives. Alameda County deserves better.
Levy proudly connects his choice to the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement, an effort with leaders who oppose the very existence of the State of Israel and have justified violent Palestinian resistance.
Levy seems to be unaware that demonizing Israel has real-world consequences. Since Oct. 7, 2023, anti-Jewish hate crimes and incidents have surged dramatically, including in Alameda County. By aligning with BDS and causing pain and fear within the pro-Israel community, Levy has amplified local divisions.
Ethical investing should unite communities around shared values, not embolden movements that spread hate and exacerbate tensions. This is why we’re calling on Levy to craft an ethical investment policy that requires divestment decisions be affirmed by broad consensus at the board of supervisors. The policy should require a supermajority of the board voting in favor before divestment can be made, and it should target U.S. enemies, not allies.
At the same Dec. 10 board of supervisors meeting, Levy stated that Alameda County’s ethical investment policy should focus on positive guidelines — emphasizing what should be invested in — rather than “negative screening” or targeting specific companies for divestment. We wholeheartedly agree. The county’s written ethical investment policy should ensure that divestment is used only in ways that bring the community together, rather than split it apart.
Levy himself said that divestment is not primarily a tool for impacting finances, but rather for impacting social norms. The treasurer is entrusted with the financial well-being of Alameda County, not with setting our social norms. Such decisions should instead be made by the board of supervisors.
His decision to divest from Caterpillar bonds may be framed as ethical, but its roots in selective activism, personal motivations and alignment with divisive movements like BDS tell a different story. Ethical investing is a noble goal, but it must be guided by fairness, consistency and transparency — not by ad-hoc decisions that undermine trust and fuel division.
If Alameda County is to pursue an ethical investment strategy, it must do so with a clear, objective policy that reflects the needs and values of its diverse community. Anything less risks reducing ethical governance to a tool for personal agendas and political pressure.
“As a fiduciary, I must be extremely careful to stay within public policies,” Levy wrote in his op-ed. “I also need to be careful not to impose my own values.” Unfortunately, he has done just that.