Brown’s Withdrawing from the Fossil Fuel Industry. Will Harvard Follow?
Harvard Administrators Stall Divestment Efforts as Other Universities Lead the Way
In a win for climate justice, Brown University is in the process of withdrawing its investment in the fossil fuel industry. Over 90% of Brown’s fossil fuel holdings have already been sold, say administrators, and the last 10% are actively being unwound. It’s yet another example of institutions — from Georgetown to the University of California to to half of all universities in the UK — ending their investment in the industry. And though it’s just a first step, since Brown needs to follow through with their promises and ensure that the decision is institutionalized, it’s an essential one nonetheless. For the sake of our generation, we implore Harvard to join its peer institutions and withdraw from the fossil fuel industry before it’s too late.
Make no mistake, the decision is a win for student activists. When Brown last considered the issue of divestment a few years ago, its board unanimously rejected it, with the President saying that there wasn’t clear evidence that divestment worked. Since then, the truth has become clear: funds collectively worth trillions of dollars having committed to some sort of divestment, and everyone from financial commentators to fossil fuel companies themselves are acknowledging the financial impact that the movement can pose. Around the country and the world, students have been some of the key drivers changing minds and pushing for this change. Fossil Free Brown, Brown Climate Action Now, Sunrise Brown, and many other organizations fought uphill battles throughout the years to make this decision possible.
Jane Dietze, the CIO and Vice President of Brown University estimates that the average amount that Ivy League institutions have invested in the fossil fuel industry is 6.5% of their endowments. If Dietze’s estimate is correct, Harvard could have $2.6 billion invested in the destruction of our futures.
“Brown has clearly made the right decision ethically and financially in releasing its fossil fuel holdings. This decision shows both the feasibility and rationality of divestment for our peer institutions, and we hope that our administration will take the final step of full, official divestment as well,” said Galen Hall, an organizer with Brown Climate Action Now (CAN). The university’s decision is not complete divestment, nor does it ensure that Brown won’t invest in fossil fuel companies in the future should they become more profitable. Still, Brown’s announcement makes it the first in the Ivy League — which collectively holds $139 billion in endowment assets — to commit to major fossil fuel divestment.
Brown’s decision shows how realistic disclosure is. In the article announcing the decision, they released to the public the percentage of their endowment invested in the industry. Harvard administrators have refused to provide this same information time and time again, citing excuses ranging from not wanting to compromise their market strategy to not being able to obtain that information in the first place. Brown’s disclosure is yet another piece of evidence that Harvard’s claims do not hold water.
Another big piece of information came out of Brown’s announcement. Jane Dietze, the CIO and Vice President of Brown University told the Brown Daily Herald she estimates that the average amount that Ivy League institutions have invested in the fossil fuel industry is 6.5% of their endowments. If Dietze’s estimate is correct, Harvard could have $2.6 billion invested in the destruction of our futures. Any amount invested is too much, but an investment at this scale would be shockingly unjust. If this estimate doesn’t reflect Harvard’s exposure to the industry, we welcome Harvard disprove them and disclose the scope of their holdings in the industry.
If it continues to refuse disclosure, Harvard will be taking a page out of the oil industry’s playbook: commit publicly to fighting climate change, while trying to delay actual action as long as possible and obfuscate crucial information from public view. This is shameful, and entirely a decision of just 12 people making up the Harvard Corporation — not the hundreds of thousands of alumni, faculty, and students who make up Harvard, or the millions of people who are already facing the consequences of the climate crisis.
As our planet burns, our institutions cannot continue to stand with the arsonists. Divestment is a moral imperative: as Brown’s Advisory Committee on Corporate Responsibility in Investment Policies put it in recommending coal divestment a few years ago, “the harms associated with these companies’ business practices are so grave that it would be deeply unethical for Brown University to continue to profit from them.” Moreover, it is financially prudent to cut ties from a dying industry: “People know that this sector is dying, … and it’s just not a good long-term investment,” said a Brown administrator to the campus newspaper. Our universities need to divest, and show that they’re truly on the side of our generation.
Brown’s actions include commitments to strengthen resiliency in their local communities, an important and necessary component of any comprehensive climate plan. In announcing its decision, Brown’s President Christina Paxson emphasized its efforts to ensure climate resilience in Providence and other Rhode Island communities, ensuring that the decision benefits even the less-fortunate in its community, those who live in the shadow of its ivory tower but do not share in its wealth. This stated commitment is laudable, but it remains to be seen what tangible efforts the university will make as a result. The Brown community must hold its administration accountable to make sure these promises are more than just gestures.
“We also know that Brown cannot stop here,” said Hall. “Our university has a long ways to go before it can truthfully claim to be a leader on climate action in Rhode Island or elsewhere, and we look forward to pushing it to live up to its own rhetoric.” Brown CAN is campaigning for true climate justice, for Brown to cut all investment, donation and business ties with organizations undermining climate science and progress. They also centralize the responsibility of Brown to lead Providence and Rhode Island into a just post-carbon transition.
Is Harvard Listening?
“The status quo when it comes to investment strategy has lost the confidence of the faculty.” — Kirsten Weld, Professor of History, after the Faculty of Arts and Sciences voted for divestment by 90%.
As the climate crisis grows more dire every day, and other institutions show what leadership looks like, is Harvard listening? Despite overwhelming majorities of Harvard’s own experts voting in favor of divestment, Harvard has so far failed to grasp the urgency: board members “did not have time” to substantially discuss it at their last meeting, and endowment insiders are admitting that they have no expectations of changing their minds.
The Harvard administration still has a very small window to show leadership on fossil fuel divestment — but the Harvard community is rapidly losing confidence in their ability to lead. In a poll published on March 6th by The Harvard Crimson, only one quarter of faculty respondents said that they thought President Bacow represented their interests well. Empty words calling for healthy debate mean very little when one side does not show that they are debating in good faith. For eight years, we have expressed a genuine desire to work with the administration to commit to just use of the endowment. We continue to want to reach a solution with President Bacow and Senior Fellow Lee, while Harvard still has a chance to make an impact. We want to have an honest and productive conversation about this difficult and important issue and find a solution that leaves the planet and the institution better off. Does Harvard administration share this same desire?
Brown’s decision is only a first step — student activists will need to make sure they carry through with their promises and unwind their remaining fossil fuel holdings, end the chokehold that fossil fuel funding creates in climate research, ensure that external funds and 3rd-party managers live up to the same standards, interrogate other potentially unjust holdings, and more. But it is a major initial victory. We hope that Harvard takes the first step of divestment, and brings the voices of the community together to show real climate leadership. But so long as administrators drag their heels, and institutions like Brown leave Harvard in the dust with decisions like this, the window to make this happen is rapidly closing. By Earth Day 2020, Harvard must disclose, divest, and reinvest, because business as usual cannot be allowed to continue.
“If we divest, and do it right… It will be front-page news. It will be a jolt of adrenaline to the world-wide divestment campaign. It will be one more ray of hope for all those on the front lines of the battle to save our planet.” — Ned Hall, Chair of the Philosophy Department, at a faculty debate on divestment.
