Two days after the University announced it would withdraw its investment from PetroChina, the Beijing-based oil company with ties to the Sudanese government, a major student group that sought to bring about the divestment is disbanding.

In a brief statement sent to supporters of Senior Gift Plus yesterday, the group announced its decision to disband and return donations it had received, but also affirmed its dedication to total divestment.

In a meeting Tuesday night, the Executive Committee and several other members of the group decided that “the avenue of Senior Gift PLUS is no longer the most effective means to accomplish our objectives,” according to the statement. Committee members said they came to a consensus about the dissolution almost immediately.

Matthew W. Mahan ’05 and Brandon M. Terry ’05 founded the group in February to offer an alternative to the Senior Gift which would express dissatisfaction with Harvard’s investments.

Senior Gift Plus’ mission statement—as published on their website—says the group will contribute any donations it receives to Senior Gift and to the Harvard College Fund when the university divests fully from PetroChina and any “undisclosed companies working with the Sudanese Government.”

But Victor O.A. Amoo ’05, a member of the executive committee, said that to give the money to Senior Gift would send the message that “it’s over.”

“This is what happened in South Africa,” Amoo said. “You had the symbolic divestment of a few companies, but the actual full divestment never occurring. So we don’t want to legitimize a partial divestment.”

The group had prepared to begin a large fund-raising drive this week, according to group Chief Financial Officer Daniel B. Weissman ’05, and was unable last night to provide data on either number of donors or the total amount of money raised.

Members of the executive committee said that although the University has not yet disclosed its investments in the five other companies Senior Gift Plus lists on its website, divesting from PetroChina was the primary goal.

“We’ve already gotten them to take the big symbolic action,” Mahan said. “Continuing Senior Gift Plus at this time is counterproductive; it would basically alienate seniors who...are pretty happy that Harvard divested.”

While group members acknowledged that Senior Gift Plus was not solely responsible for Harvard’s divestment, they said it played an important role in campus awareness.

“The biggest success of Senior Gift Plus was that we created an atmosphere where everybody was talking about Sudan,” Terry said. “If we accomplished nothing else, then even the people who hated Senior Gift Plus would have to begrudgingly admit that that’s what we did, and that that paid off.”

The members of the executive committee all said they intend to keep working against the Darfur genocide with other groups.

Jessica E. Vascellaro ’05, spokeswoman for Senior Gift, said many seniors who had been conflicted about giving now might consider making donations.

“I think there are a lot of seniors out there...who were very split about wanting to support Senior Gift and wanting to make a statement,” said Vascellaro, who is also a Crimson editor. “We expect that now it will be easier for them to voice that support while still being able to fight on other fronts.”

Vascellaro said she is less concerned with Senior Gift Plus’ decision to return the money to donors instead of forwarding it directly to Senior Gift.

“The goal of Senior Gift is about participation and always has been,” she said. “We’ve always been less concerned in the exact dollar amount.”

Some Senior Gift Plus members said they would consider working for Senior Gift—but only if the University meets the group’s demand of total divestment.

“If Harvard sets a broader precedent that we’re not going to support genocide...then I’ll jump aboard Senior Gift and I think a lot of other people will,” Mahan said.

—Staff writer David B. Rochelson can be reached at rochels@fas.harvard.edu.