Swarthmore's independent campus newspaper since 1881

Tag archive

divestment

BREAKING: SWARTHMORE DIVESTS FROM STUDENT VOICES

in Breaking News/News by

In a stunning turn of events, the Board of Managers of Swarthmore College made the decision last weekend to completely divest from the concerns of the college community and invest the college’s entire multi-billion dollar endowment in the rubber duck industry. The decision comes after weeks of careful deliberation with well-meaning student activists and concerned alumni. Thankfully, all of the considerations were carefully thrown out the window before the decision was made, ensuring that a complete lack of transparency in the Board of Managers’ decision-making would be preserved.

Several committees with no decision-making power whatsoever were formed in anticipation of the decision in order to feign a sense of student engagement with the process. The Ducks Matter Committee, the Envisioning Exercise, and the Dean’s Quacking Committee were all formed with an equal distribution of SGO-appointed students, faculty, and staff members and spent several weeks discussing the abstract concepts behind investing in rubber ducks. While students voiced vehement opposition to the rubber duck industry, college staff championed each of the committees as a productive space for meaningful and productive conversation to take place.

“I was really impressed with the many ways college staff made me feel like my voice was heard while simultaneously offering no commitment to act on my concerns whatsoever,” said Ana S. Mallard ’17. Mallard joined the Ducks Matter Committee so that she could find another excuse not to complete her thesis this semester.

The implications of the decision to invest in rubber ducks will be swift and current students will feel its impact. Investment strategist Martha Duckworth believes that the decision to invest in rubber ducks does not reflect a change in the college’s policies or values; rather, Duckworth stressed that the Board of Managers was simply choosing to be fiscally responsible and not tie up discussions of the endowment in “social issues,” otherwise known as the policies and practices that affect real individuals on a daily basis. Beginning with the class of 2017, all graduating seniors will receive a rubber duck on graduation day, engraved with the tiny phrase, “We know that none of you wanted this to happen, but you’re a part of the real world, now!” Furthermore, the college’s official mascot will become Ducky the Duck, effective immediately.

MJ to fully automate divestment protest process

in Satire by

In response to the recent citations of four Mountain Justice student protesters, MJ has decided to dramatically escalate their divestment campaign. In order to do so, MJ has enlisted the help of a large team of computer science and engineering students to fully automate the divestment campaign. With the help of a web crawler, Facebook chat bot, and neural network, MJ will be emailing a new divestment petition to every current Swarthmore student, every newly admitted member of the class of 2021, every living Swat alumnus, and unfortunately more than a few deceased alumni. This petition will include a new feature for alumni where they can list dollar amounts of donations that they’re not giving to the school because of the college’s refusal to divest. Although the petition is expected to yield signatures far exceeding the size of the present student body, the petition will likely not return a number of signatures rivalling the size of the endowment and will therefore be entirely ignored by the administration.

“Our new divestment campaign is going to be bigger and better than any divestment campaign so far. Obviously, we’re bringing back the petition, that one’s always a fan favorite. We’re also really going to double down on the sit-ins, because that seems really hot at the moment, but to really make a statement, we’ve decided on a quadruple-headed approach this time and are introducing two entirely new campaign,” said Jessica Terra ‘19.  

One new campaign focuses on sending the Board of Managers hourly updates of the number of individuals who’ve signed the petition and the amount of money not donated to the school. To avoid the MJ email address simply being blacklisted, MJ is asking students to install a new app they’ve created on their cell phones which will rotate between users of the app, occasionally utilizing the user’s phone to email, text, call, fax, and LinkedIn DM members of the Board of Managers. The app will be available for iOS, Android, Windows Phone, Blackberry, and Nokia flip phone and the the hourly update duties will be distributed among the set of users using a neural network.

The sit-in protest will also be fully automated. Engineering students have constructed a group of humanoid robots which will sit in the offices of Vice President of Finances and Administration Gregory Brown, Chief Investment Officer Mark Amstutz, Associate Dean of Students Nathan Miller, and President Valerie Smith for an indefinite period of time. In order to comply with the Student Code of Conduct, these robots will be fully functional personal assistants, assisting (and not interfering with) the day to day work of the administrators. In order to be effective as a protest, however, the robots will continuously emit subliminal pro-divestment messages, which largely consist of polar bear trivia. The technology, of course, utilizes neural networks to govern the robot’s administrative assistant capabilities.

When it was pointed out to MJ that these robots probably are already against the Student Code of Conduct and, if not, definitely will be by next year when the college updates the Code of Conduct to bar even more forms of student protest, MJ members responded by saying that the robots probably don’t count as students and can’t be cited and weigh approximately 800 pounds each so it’s not like PubSafe could really move them even if they wanted to.

The fourth head of MJ’s new quadruple headed approach is an innovative new protest technique where MJ is combining their Responsible Endowments Fund with a million layer neural network to actively target the college’s fossil fuel investments and decrease their value through a series of minor market exchanges indecipherable to the human mind.

“To be honest, I’m not even sure what this one does. It sort of makes sense, but this isn’t something that should actually work, is it?” said MJ member someone someone.

“This should definitely not work,” said Associate Professor of Computer Science, someone someone.

Divestment necessary as a model of sustainability

in Letter to the Editor/Opinions by

We are writing in response to the article that appeared in the Phoenix on December 1st, 2016 entitled “Sustainability Office’s Work Continues, Consultants to be hired; Future of the Carbon Tax Unclear.”
We are both Swarthmore class of 1965. We are concerned about the global future, and the college that we love and we desperately need to make it more sustainable. We have asked—no, pleaded with—the Board of Managers to divest from fossil fuels and we have put our money where our mouths are by making significant contributions to the President’s Climate Commitment Fund. We are happy that the PCCF helped send a Swarthmore delegation to Marrakech for the important Conference of the Parties 22 meeting this past November.

We were around Swarthmore in early October and happy to visit our alma mater. We were delighted to find the campus as beautiful as we had remembered it. On a somewhat chilly morning we explored the Sproul Observatory building looking for the office of the College Bulletin, which is the magazine through which the College stays in touch with alumni. We found the office, but were dismayed to also find an air conditioner cooling an area next to the Bulletin’s office. The problem was not necessarily the air conditioner, but the fact that the school was running the air conditioner on an already cold day.
From this experience and the way that the college is currently handling the conflict with divestment, there is much to be gained by the work of the Sustainability Office and the work of the President’s Office as a whole. The effect on people, especially students, is even greater than the effect that it has had by making the campus greener.

We are proud that Swarthmore will be educating a group of leaders in sustainability! However, we also need to ensure that Swarthmore is taking all the steps it can to set an example for leaders in sustainability, starting with divestment.

Gail (Sise) Grossman and Richard Grossman, Swarthmore ‘65

Not to Humiliate but to Win Over

in Op-Eds/Opinions by

Reflections on the Right to Peacefully Assemble to Protest Fossil Fuels Endowment Investment at Swarthmore College”

The 1st amendment of the U.S. Constitution states the right of free people to peacefully assemble, and to petition their governing body for a redress of grievances.  In this spirit, Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in 1958 that the aim of the nonviolent resistance movement is not to “seek to humiliate or defeat the opponent but to win his friendship and understanding.”  Beginning five years ago, the on-campus campaign to persuade Swarthmore to divest its fossil fuels holdings has operated in the spirit of King’s constitutionally protected movement for social change.

But this peaceful effort has now provoked a disappointing response on the part of the College.

The core mission of Swarthmore College is to teach students how to pursue learning with a commitment to social change.  Faculty agree with this goal, and on March 24 voted 53-9, with 4 abstentions, to urge the College to divest from Big Oil, Gas, and Coal.  Additionally, on February 24, students sat in the administration’s Investment Office and surrounding public spaces to protest the college’s endowment policy.  This action is the same action that was taken in the Spring of 2015, but the earlier protest lasted almost five weeks instead of one day.  In the recent one-day sit-in, the same spaces were occupied as the one in 2015, including the so-called private work area of the Investment Officer.  As a faculty ally, I was present at the beginning of the 2015 sit-in — along with student protesters who temporarily, and peacefully, occupied the Investment Office at that time.  No action was taken against anyone involved in the 2015 sit-in.

Fast forward to today.  Now, in response to the recent one-day protest, the college is charging student protesters with entering and failing to leave a private work area, and interrupting the work of staff members.  This is a debatable charge for two reasons.  Fundamentally, no college-owned work space is strictly private.  Moreover, why was the current standard not invoked two years ago when faculty and students, in protest, entered the same office and surrounding space and interrupted the work of staff members?

On March 26, President Valerie Smith wrote an open letter charging the sit-in students with violating the student code of conduct.  This letter followed a March 17 confidential letter by Dean Nathan Miller announcing an administrative review of the protesting students.  But the mission of the college says “Swarthmore seeks to help its students realize their full intellectual and personal potential combined with a deep sense of ethical and social concern.”  To me, this is the core issue at stake in this on-going disputation.  I believe the nonviolent protesters were simply living out this mission statement and realizing its full aim by peacefully taking over an administrative office guided by their commitment to social and planetary well-being.

Contrary to President Smith and Dean Miller, the students’ action, fundamentally, was not a conduct code violation, but a courageous act of conscience.

Concerning the specifics of Dean Miller’s private letter and subsequent secret hearings, the college’s review of the students in question violates due process.  The hearings assumed certain facts in question, gave the students only two business days to prepare, made no provision for students to secure outside counsel to assist them in their defense, prohibited the students from asking for a continuance, and announced a set of dire consequences if they failed to accept its terms.  According to Dean Miller’s letter, the students were adjudicated under the Minor Misconduct Process, but the intended punishments were potentially severe, ranging from notations in students’ records to probation, monetary damages, and “additional educational sanctions,” whatever that means.  In the end, it appears the college let the students off with a warning.  But what will be their fate, or that of future protesters, if they attempt a similar act of peaceful dissent in the future?

Guided by conscience and good will, Swarthmore students today, as they did two years ago, are putting their education and their futures on the line by thoughtfully challenging the college administration to do the right thing and stop giving the toxic fossil fuels extraction industry its seal of approval.  Nonviolent direct action is not a new tactic at Swarthmore.  Previous peaceful occupations of administrative offices – for example, African-American students take-over of the Admissions Office in 1969, and Anti-Apartheid students take-over of the Admissions Office in 1985 – portended the fossil fuels sit-ins of 2015 and last month.

As King said, we should never demean or insult one another as we struggle in the communities we serve to realize common ideals.  Fair-minded people of good will, then, can sometimes agree about long-range strategic goals, but disagree about immediate tactics to realize these goals.  The College’s Sustainability Office, Environmental Studies Program, Climate Action Plan, carbon charge, green advisors, and much more, are central to its concerted efforts to facilitate learning and living responsibly in troubled times.  But Swarthmore is also squandering its good name by lending its moral capital to a dying industry hell-bent on destroying the self-regulating climate system that sustains Earth’s biosphere.  Instead of charging students with conduct violations who are living out the College’s mission through peaceful action, Swarthmore should crown each of these students as climate heroes whose fearless actions are an inspiration for all of us.

Who Has the Power? My Journey into Swat Bureaucracy

in Op-Eds/Opinions by

Ever since the Board of Managers chose not to divest from fossil fuels, I’ve started envisioning the people “at the top” of the Swarthmore administration, who chose to ignore the strong student support of divestment. In my more dramatic moments, I imagined rows of white men in suits, all puppets of the fossil fuel industry, deliberately frustrating wide-eyed idealist students at every turn through heinous bureaucratic tricks. Basically, a combination of the Koch brothers and very unhelpful DMV employees.

That vision was very unfair of me; only half of the Board of Managers is composed of white men (take into account white women, though, and the Board is looking less diverse). Many are involved in philanthropy and nonprofit work.

But if the board isn’t all that bad, why did they avoid directly engaging with students? When student protesters moved to Kohlberg, where the Board of Managers planned to meet in the Scheueur Room, Dean Liz Braun heroically escorted the Board members into the room through the kitchen door, supposedly to avoid disturbing the protest. Call me a cynic, but I doubt they cared about disrupting the protest that much. Rather, I have a feeling they wanted to avoid the protesters (who were not, by any definition, a bloodthirsty bunch).

Searching through the managers’ biographies did not suggest any scandalous conflicts of interest that would explain the Board’s unwillingness to converse. A number of managers have worked for firms that the average noble, socially conscious Swattie would probably condemn — such as Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan —- and the members of the Investment Committee all work in finance, a number of them in private equity firms, but that is to be expected. I did find a potentially troubling connection through a non-Swarthmore publication; Chris Niemczewski ‘74, the Investment Committee’s chair, “is responsible for investing the endowment and finding external consultants and managers to invest and manage it;” he is also the president of the investment advisory firm Marshfield Associates, which Swarthmore paid almost $200,000 in investment management fees. One of Marshfield Associates’ major investments is in Deere and Devon Energy, a gas and petroleum producer. The Phoenix has previously noticed and discussed this possible conflict of interest. (http://swarthmorephoenix.com/2014/10/23/investment-committee-conflict-of-interest/).

It is worth noting that, before I started this research, I had no idea how powerful the Board of Managers truly is. I naively assumed that, since President Smith and the various deans were the ones from whom we got emails from and with whom we communicated, they were the people in charge. But it’s the Board that hires — and fires — the college’s presidents, that approves the Swarthmore budget, and that approves changes in salaries (http://swarthmorephoenix.com/2015/09/03/top-salaries-at-college-similar-to-those-at-peer-institutions/). Even in the Swat Bubble, money has power. President Smith inspires respect, even affection, in students. I was at the Mountain Justice sit-in, and appreciated that she took the effort to come and check on the students. I was less appreciative of the fact that she somewhat woodenly repeated the same line about the Board having made its decision. We’d like to think that Val calls the shots; but, ultimately, she seems to have little formal power with the managers.

Again, it’s unfair to generalize. The Board does have some diverse backgrounds, and I imagine there was some debate about divestment. Board Member David Singleton even came by the sit-in to engage with students, and admitted that divestment had proved effective in other colleges. Yet the managers as a whole proved unwilling to extend that debate to include students.

“We talk a lot about dialogue and critical thinking, and the Board wasn’t willing to engage with questions that are difficult,” points out Stephen O’Hanlon ‘17, a Mountain Justice coordinator. “[It’s] unacceptable that they aren’t engaging with something that was accepted by such a wide margin.”

In all the time I spent looking through the webpages for various Board committees, I did not feel as if the Board or the President’s Office was trying to hide shameful secrets or throw anyone off the track. From what I understand, Swarthmore is managed like an ordinary, not particularly corrupt private company. But maybe that’s the problem. We’re not just any private company, with shareholders and investors. Swarthmore’s very purpose is to “make its students more valuable human beings and more useful members of society…with a deep sense of ethical and social concern.” (Incidentally, I wasn’t aware one could become a more valuable human being).

In the world of private companies, presumably Swat students would be the equivalent of shareholders. But we won’t just be content with getting an end of they year report (or multiple emails from various offices, or a Self-Study Action Report that mentions the need for administrative transparency). We won’t just read the very bland short bios of the managers, and try to navigate the Board’s 11 committees through unhelpful webpages. Some Committees’ roles are not even explained — such as the Compensation Committee. Google has revealed that Compensation Committees decide salaries. Nothing specifies whose salaries, but I assume that this is the Committee of whom staff members would like to stay on the good side.

The Board proudly proclaims its commitment to Quaker values. Chief among these should be a willingness to fully include students in the decision-making process – to act by consensus, rather than avoid us. O’Hanlon worries that “there’s no formal way for students or faculty to influence the Board of Managers.”

The ultimately fruitless referendum seems to support O’Hanlon’s concerns. But Swat students have brains, passion, and a real commitment to changing things. In a few decades, some of us will be the next Board of Managers. Are we willing to speak out now, ask the Board for more transparency, more engagement with students, if not more inclusion in their decisions? Or will we also be sneaking in through the kitchen door 30 years from now?

 

(This article by a non-Swattie discusses the College’s endowment and investments, in addition to the one conflict of interest I may have found. It is definitely worth reading, at least to gain one outside perspective. http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/20150720_Richly_Endowed.html)

 

Why the Board should listen to the divestment referendum

in Op-Eds/Opinions by

In 2013, I was skeptical of divestment. I reasoned through simple, and undoubtedly naïve, cost-benefit analysis that the expected gains in terms of direct reduction of fossil fuel consumption did not outweigh potential losses faced by the college. Nevertheless, I decided to vote in favor of partial divestment.

  In my opinion, the strongest argument against divestment is that it will not directly lead to the reduction of fossil fuel consumption. I still believe this is probably true, but I recognize that this is a severely limited view on the potential benefits of divestment. Is the average American paying attention to Swarthmore’s endowment? No. Are they paying attention to the divestment movement? Probably not. But the average American does know about climate change, and divestment has to be included as part of the larger movement to combat the irreversible human-induced damage to our planet. Although Swarthmore’s commitments to reducing its carbon footprint, including the Sustainability Framework, are admirable, climate change will not be solved by individual self-restraint. It requires a global movement that begins and ends with societal perceptions of fossil fuels. It’s easy to dismiss divestment by claiming that nobody pays attention to the movement. But, when we look back years from now, it’ll be incredibly difficult to justify why we did not divest.

  What I find most frustrating is the assurance that maintaining our investments in fossil fuels is the way to “yield the best long term financial results.” I won’t go so far as to say the divestment will be absolutely profitable, nor will I claim to know more about investment than the Board of Managers. However, they are not the only authorities on the subject. Expert views on the cost of divestment are more mixed than conclusive, and, more importantly, there is real financial risk involved in maintaining our holdings. Even if we take the Board of Managers own $200 million shortfall as divestment’s worst possible outcome, who’s to say that retaining our holdings is safer?

  Solar prices have fallen below wind prices in developing countries. BP’s 2017 Energy Outlook expects the number of electric vehicles to expand from 1.2 million in 2015 to 100 million by 2035. An (albeit optimistic) Grantham Institute at Imperial College study expects demand for coal and oil to peak in 2020. We are biased to expect past trends to continue unchanged, and if they don’t, we should be very concerned about being left holding the empty oil drum. Professionals with billions of dollars at stake failed spectacularly in 2008, and I don’t see any reason to believe massive strides in our ability to avoid herd mentality and predict the future have been made in the last decade.  

  It remains to be seen why we as students should be forced to accept the judgment of professional investors when there is no clear consensus in the expert world. If we believe students deserve any say at all in how the endowment is invested, why can’t partial divestment be an appropriate compromise? An 80 percent vote in favor of divestment from 55 percent of the student body deserves more than an immediate dismissal; there should be real debate.

  Divestment won’t drive fossil fuel companies to financial ruin. Still, whether due to a whirlwind of technological development or an uptick in visible damage from natural disaster, the consumption of fossil fuels is going to have to end sooner or later. If we are truly concerned about long term financial results, the real question shouldn’t be “why divest?” Instead, it should be “why not divest?”

 

We forced divestment from apartheid, we will do it again

in Op-Eds/Opinions/Uncategorized by

Yesterday, SGO announced the results of the student referendum on fossil fuel divestment. The referendum passed by a landslide: 80.5 percent of voters agreed that Swarthmore College should divest from fossil fuels with 55 percent voter turnout. The results of the referendum demonstrate a clear mandate from the student body for the Board to take action on divestment.

Despite this mandate, President Valerie Smith and Board Chair, Thomas E. Spock ’78, released a statement Wednesday afternoon in which they upheld the Board’s 2015 decision not to divest while ignoring the referendum’s popular support on campus. The Board’s decision to immediately cast aside this referendum and refuse to seriously engage with the issue of divestment in unacceptable, particularly as the fossil fuel industry partners with the Trump administration to push forward climate policies that will threaten millions of lives.

Mountain Justice’s fossil fuel divestment campaign is not the first divestment campaign on Swarthmore’s campus. Swarthmore students began to organize against apartheid in South Africa as early as 1965, and in 1978 they launched a divestment campaign with a petition highlighting the injustices of apartheid, the College’s investments in companies involved in South Africa, and the College’s Quaker values.

The anti-apartheid divestment campaign spanned eleven long years: eleven years of being ignored, sidestepped, and rejected by the Board. Students circulated petitions, staged sit-ins, invited speakers, formed human chains, and slept on Parrish porch. Despite the Board rejecting divestment four times, students and faculty persisted, taking increasingly escalated action, and in 1989 the Board committed to a plan to divest from apartheid by 1990. Due to student efforts, the College finally decided that it was morally and politically unthinkable to continue to support apartheid.

As President Smith and Board Chair Spock cited in their email, following the decision to divest from apartheid, the Board adopted new investment guidelines stating that the “Investment Committee manages the endowment to yield the best long term financial results, rather than to pursue other social objectives.” While we understand that some restraint around using the endowment for social purposes is important, the Board’s blanket rejection of any social concerns with our investments is morally unconscionable. Our investments do not exist in a vacuum. Investing in these companies directly undermines the social and political work the college advocates and pursues both on campus and beyond. Unless the Board thinks that divestment from apartheid was a mistake, their current objection to any divestment proposals is morally and politically inconsistent.

As our “Fossil Fuel Divestment Finances Fact Sheet” points out, our current proposal not only sidesteps the past financial concerns of the Board but could also ultimately serve as a financial boon to the College. Additionally, we find it deeply disturbing that the reasons President Smith and Board Chair Spock cited for ignoring the student referendum — these guidelines as well as previous rejection of fossil fuel divestment — would have prevented the College’s divestment from apartheid had students not persisted. Of course, the system of apartheid in South Africa and the fossil fuel industry are by no means the same. However, both the apartheid regime and the fossil fuel industry are rogue social actors that pose mortal threats to millions of people.

Today, we stand at a turning point in history on the brink of climate disaster. The devastating effects of climate change cannot be understated: sea levels and temperatures are rising; droughts, floods, and extreme weather patterns are increasing in intensity and frequency; and those most impacted by the crisis — indigenous communities, communities of color, and low-income communities —are met with brutal force and militarized police when they peacefully resist the pipelines, incinerators, and refineries routed through their land and lives.

Despite this increasingly urgent reality, we are rapidly going in the wrong direction. From appointing as Secretary of State the former CEO of Exxon, a company that funded climate denialism and hid the truth from the public for decades, to appointing Environmental Protection Agency administrator Scott Pruitt, a man who sued the agency he is now supposed to run over a dozen times during the Obama administration, the Trump administration has made it clear that it cares more about profits than people’s lives and the environment.

Now more than ever, we need institutions like Swarthmore College to be a leader and take action on this urgent issue. Neutrality is no longer an option; continuing to invest in companies that place profit over people, trample indigenous sovereignty, fund climate denialism, and poison our air, water, and land is not a neutral stance.

Nor can action be limited to efforts on our campus. We must stigmatize the fossil fuel industry and revoke their social license to operate. Teaching students about sustainability and adding a carbon charge are important examples of climate action. However, continuing to invest in the very companies that fund climate denialism and lobby Congress to block meaningful climate action ultimately undermines these efforts. By stigmatizing the fossil fuel industry, divestment will help create the political will for these other important initiatives.

Believing that it is urgent for Swarthmore to send a powerful moral message in this political moment, we have offered a compromise: our proposal for partial divestment avoids the main concerns, such as a potential loss in financial gains, that the Board has cited in the past. And yet, the Board refuses to listen to the student body, telling us that the situation has not changed in the past two years.

But the situation has changed. Not only does the proposal in the referendum avoid the Board’s previous financial concerns, but a mandate from students and a political situation that demands institutional leadership creates a new imperative for divestment.

The Board has refused to listen to the student body before on matters of divestment. Had students not persisted, the College may never have divested from apartheid in South Africa. Now, like then, we must demand leadership from our institution, or we risk looking back, years down the line, and realizing that we stood on the wrong side of history. We cannot stand idly by and let that happen.

In referendum, vote for divestment, vote for justice

in Op-Eds/Opinions by

From foreign conflict to inadequate healthcare to domestic militarized, racist policing, the government controlled by Donald Trump and the Republican Party has exacerbated existing problems, leaving widespread suffering and even death in its wake. But perhaps the issue around which the most devastating effects are being produced is climate change. As a result of reckless federal policies, there is an increasingly high potential that more people will not only feel climate change’s effects now, but will continue to starve, be displaced, and die for centuries to come.

Even under President Obama, the transition away from fossil fuels, which is necessary to prevent devastating temperature increases and increasingly frequent and extreme natural disasters, was weak. But under Trump, concern for the future of the planet has been replaced by concern for the profit of fossil fuel corporations. If the public could not rely on Obama to effectively prevent climate change, it certainly cannot rely on Trump.

Now is the time to take matters into our own hands. We must make climate change an issue that the government cannot ignore, make fossil fuel companies a problem that the public cannot ignore, and destabilize the industry that makes profits while it poisons oppressed communities and causes global damage that will last for generations to come. On campus, that means that we must divest from fossil fuels.

Divestment is one of the most powerful tactics we as college students possess to undermine the industries that carelessly cause climate change. Executives will not halt extraction of the product upon which their companies are based. Further, when the government does not act to restrict these corporations and instead seeks to deregulate them, it falls to the public to delegitimize the fossil fuel industry and make climate change a defining moral issue. To do this, hundreds of institutions have taken a stand through divestment, sending a clear and powerful message to businesses, governments, and other institutions that the fossil fuel companies are part of a rogue industry that has no place in a just future or within our institutions. The fossil fuel industry has recognized that this message poses a threat to them and has actively tried to stifle the divestment movement through public relations campaigns and legal action. As the campus that began the fossil fuel divestment movement, we at Swarthmore have the power to send a bold message on where we stand as an institution in this time of a climate change denialist government. This message will help to stigmatize the fossil fuel industry and push it further towards unacceptability in the mainstream.

   However, despite our considerable position of power and influence and the size of our $1.9 billion endowment, Swarthmore’s Board of Managers has consistently refused to divest. Now, when the Republican-controlled government is threatening our futures and millions of lives, it is our duty as students to unequivocally tell them that they must divest and reject their deadly neutrality. To give students a chance to send this message, Mountain Justice has organized the first referendum in the campaign’s history through the Student Government Organization. Students can vote online at http://bit.ly/DivestSwat on Monday, Feb. 20, and Tuesday, Feb. 21 to call on the board to partially divest.

While full divestment would be the most powerful action in the struggle for climate justice, the partial divestment proposal this referendum advocates for gives the board no excuse to avoid listening to our demands. It has three parts. The first is divestment from separately managed funds, which are essentially customizable funds, and makes divestment as simple as asking our managers to stop investing in the Carbon Underground list of the 200 largest coal, oil, and gas companies. As Christopher Niemczewski, chair of the board’s investment committee, said in the college’s Spring 2015 Bulletin, the college has separately managed funds so that “it is easy for a client to come to the investment manager with specific needs or requests, such as for a fossil-free portfolio.” The second part is asking commingled fund managers, under whom our investments are pooled with other institutions’ that already have fossil fuel free investment options to move our accounts to those divested funds. Since some of these managers do not have that option, our third request is that they move our investments to fossil fuel-free funds when they are available. This partial divestment proposal, developed after meetings with President Smith and Vice President of Finance Greg Brown, avoids the major financial challenges cited by the Board, namely the potential costs of changing managers. Simply put, this gives the board no legitimate financial reasons to avoid divestment.

   To pass, the referendum only needs 30 percent of students to vote. Of these 30 percent, a majority of those voting yes or no ― that is, those who do not vote “no preference” ― must vote yes for it to pass. Currently, over 50 percent of students and over 2000 alumni have signed MJ’s petition calling on the board to divest, so there is substantial support for divestment on or off campus. But to show the board that student support is strong enough to support a specific list of demands, we all must vote. Each yes vote is not only a call for the board to finally listen to the voices of students, but also a moral stand taken in favor of pushing the country toward just climate action in a time when the short-term greed of fossil fuel companies directs the climate policies of the government that supposedly represents us.

With our votes, divestment can once again be brought to the forefront of the board’s attention at their February meeting. While the referendum itself cannot force the board to divest, it will present a powerful message that students will not tolerate our institution’s neutrality as climate change causes worldwide suffering and is simultaneously ignored at the highest levels of government. But to send this message for climate justice, we all need to raise our voices and vote for divestment.

1 2 3 10
Go to Top