With the full Faculty scheduled to discuss the University’s response to the war with Iraq at their monthly meeting today, more than 20 Faculty members have signed a statement saying that Harvard’s sharing in the profits of defense contractors poses a moral dilemma that can no longer be ignored.

Citing a lack of U.N., public and international support for the war with Iraq, the document claims that University ownership of arms manufacturers “should be publicly debated by all concerned members of the Faculty.” The statement, which also calls for a formal discussion to be docketed for an upcoming Faculty meeting, will be read aloud today by Yve-Alain Bois, chair of the Department of History of Art and Architecture.

But due to tactical concerns, the statement does not call for divestment or donation of profits to charitable organizations—both ideas that have been raised by several Faculty members who have signed the petition. Instead the group intends to send a letter to Harvard’s Advisory Committee on Shareholder Responsibility, which advises the Board of Overseers—the University’s second-highest governing board.

An official call for divestment must come from the Overseers and be passed on to the Harvard Management Corporation, the independent company that manages Harvard’s portfolio.

According to Bois, the group deliberately omitted any mention of divestment from the current statement to prevent potential “violent” reactions that would impede further discussion of the broader issues.

“People opposed to the practice of divestment just bark loud and then we are condemned out of the hall,” he said. “But, if you start a debate with a goal of broadening discussion, you are not shoved back.”

But abandoning the call for action in favor of discussion—a move nearly unanimously supported by those who drafted the letter Sunday—has some concerned that the statement alone is not critical enough of the University’s policies.

“It’s sad to say that it doesn’t seem that a majority of the [Faculty of Arts and Sciences] would support divestment from weapons manufactures at this point,” he said. “Nonetheless, it is important to raise the issue.”

Others Faculty members, such as Department of Classics Chair Richard Thomas, described the statement as a “good first step.”

Thomas, who will lead the wider discussion about the implications of the war at today’s Faculty meeting, said that the lack of support for divestment might be related to difficulties in determining which of the companies in which Harvard owns shares are benefiting and by how much.

“I don’t know which companies are dealing in oil-well repair and operations and I don’t even know which ones are dealing in weapons,” he said.

Bois also said that focusing on the call for discussion makes the most sense since colleagues have warned him that calling for divestment raises a host of political and economic issues of which he is ignorant.

However, he said that he would like the University to strongly commit to disengaging itself from these companies in order to “set an important precedent.”

Palmer, who also strongly supports divestment, said that the decision to proceed cautiously will not inhibit more radical action in the future.

“There is a group of people ready to craft a more forceful demand,” Palmer said. “There is plenty of support for the idea of taking further steps, but many faculty members need to work together to find formulations [that will] generate support the majority.”