An investigation by The Duly Digest has revealed a troubling investment Emory University made over a decade ago.

Documents released by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reveal that in early 2011, Emory purchased $12,000 worth of shares in a company called Newmont Mining. At first glance, Newmont appears to be a reasonable investment. The company runs the world’s largest gold mining operation, and in 2011 its stock price was booming.

But years earlier, credible allegations had emerged that claimed Newmont had engaged in severe violations of human rights in Ghana.

As reporters at The Digest dug further, important questions were raised. How does Emory choose which companies to invest in? Who was responsible for approving the purchase of shares in Newmont? Did the university know about the allegations? And if so, has Emory done anything to prevent investments in such companies in the future?

This is the story of Emory’s dark investment.

In 2006, Newmont Mining broke ground for a new mine in Ghana, eager to extract gold from the region. But in order to make room for the mine, Newmont evicted nearly 10,000 subsistence farmers, compensating them as little as $50 each. Many farmers, frustrated by low rates of compensation, began to organize community meetings and protests.

Newmont responded with brutality, working with local police in the region to arrest community organizers and shut down any meeting that used Newmont’s name. And when people began to protest outside the mine, Newmont’s security forces beat, assaulted and shot protestors.

Many of the allegations against Newmont were reported and made public between 2006 and 2009, years before Emory invested in the company.

In order to verify the allegations, The Digest reached out to Earthworks, a non-governmental organization that works with local communities to protest against environmental and community destruction by energy companies. A representative at Earthworks was able to confirm the allegations to The Digest and provide additional sources to back up reports.

With the allegations against Newmont confirmed, The Digest wanted to piece together how and why Emory decided to invest in the company.

Despite the public information on human rights abuses, documents from the SEC show that sometime between March 31st and June 30th of 2011, a small office called Emory Investment Management (EIM) made the decision to purchase 220 shares in Newmont. Although most students have never heard of EIM, it holds immense value to the university, helping it invest and grow its endowment.

EIM however, is shrouded in mystery. Reporters at The Digest, in an attempt to learn how the decision to invest in Newmont was made, reached out to university officials to learn more about EIM’s operations. However, the university declined to provide specific details beyond what was publicly available.

Assistant Vice-President of Communications, Laura Diamond wrote in an email to The Digest that “the investment strategies at EIM aim to produce superior long-term investment results by maintaining a concentrated portfolio of top-tier global investment managers.”

However, Diamond did not answer any of the questions posed by reporters, and it was later discovered that Diamond’s email had been copied verbatim from EIM’s website.

Without assistance from the university, The Digest attempted to use limited information to piece together how EIM operates, using endowment and investment offices at other universities as a basis.

Emory’s endowment, which is currently worth a staggering 11 billion dollars, is a culmination of over 2000 individual endowments given to the university by donors. Many endowments have restrictions on what they can be used for, but some endowments allow the university to spend that money freely, without restrictions. Endowment offices at other institutions often work with private equity groups to make investment decisions using these unrestricted funds. These investments are then used to help grow the endowment and support the university.

Emory held onto stocks in Newmont for nearly a year after its initial purchase, selling off half its stock in late 2011 and the rest of it in the first few months of 2012.

In an attempt to learn if Emory University was aware of the human rights abuses committed by Newmont, reporters reached out to Emory’s administration to ask if they were aware of investments in Newmont or the allegations against the company as well as whether any mechanisms were in place to prevent future investments in such companies.

The Digest’s request was forwarded to Laura Diamond, who wrote in an email that “Emory declines the opportunity to participate in this article.”

With the university’s decision not to comment on this story, it was virtually impossible to learn why EIM had invested in Newmont. But there was one more opportunity to try and learn what had happened back in 2011.

The SEC documents obtained by The Digest show that a woman named Mary Cahill had signed the documents related to investments Emory made in 2011.

Mary Cahill had served at the head of EIM and as Emory’s Chief Investment Officer from 2011 to 2017 before leaving for another company. While at Emory, she had been seen as a valuable asset to the university, earning 3.2 million dollars in her final year at Emory, more than triple the salary of Emory’s President at the time, Claire Sterk.

Although she had left Emory years ago, a reporter was able to track her down and speak to her over the phone. Although Cahill was initially open to speaking to The Digest, she quickly went off the radar and stopped responding to multiple requests for comment, leaving the trail cold once again.

In September of 2014, Emory University’s Executive Committee made a decision to have EIM divest from any holdings in companies that carried out “moral evil.” Included with the Executive Committee’s decision was a list of systematic methods by which to determine whether companies met the definition of “moral evil.”

However, the decision by the Executive Committee did not require EIM to publicly discuss any divestments they made, allowing EIM to continue to operate without any public oversight. This makes it difficult for external groups to learn about EIM’s decision making process or to understand if they are following through the 2014 decision issued by the Executive Committee.

Despite the efforts of The Digest to uncover what Emory knew about its investment in Newmont or if substantial changes have been made to the system since 2011, the refusal of the university to participate in this story made it difficult to learn what happened.

Instead of learning what happened, this investigation continues to raise questions. Why did the university decline to participate or to share the changes it had made in its investment policy? Why is there such little transparency surrounding EIM, even after policy changes were issued? And how can outside groups hold the university accountable with such little information publicly available?