5529698153ab13dd4efff65c_IPAA.png

Blog

‹ All Blog Posts



October 15, 2016

Divestment’s Track Record Continues in Massachusetts: Northeastern Rejects, Harvard Students Lose in Court

Students ignore Northeastern’s July 2016 rejection of divestment, court of appeals confirms Harvard not legally required to divest, divestment continues to lose ground

Massachusetts is home to some of the nation’s most prestigious schools.  But unfortunately for divestment activists, the majority of these universities – Harvard, Northeastern, MIT, Boston College, and Tufts to name a few – have all said no to divestment.

Take Northeastern University, where pro-divestment students have ramped up protests on campus.  Earlier this month, DivestNU began pitching tents in an occupation of the campus’s main quad.  According to the school’s student newspaper, the group has vowed not to leave Centennial Common until the administration agrees to move forward on divesting.  Interestingly enough, Northeastern actually quietly rejected divestment back in July, opting instead for investing in sustainability efforts.  In the underreported announcement, Treasurer Thomas Nedell stated:

We have deliberately chosen to invest, not divest. This approach is consistent with Northeastern’s character as an institution that actively engages with the world, not one that retreats from global challenges.” (emphasis added)

The administration’s decision was in line with Northeastern Professor Matthew Nisbet’s assessment when he wrote that divestment leader Bill McKibben’s efforts, “make for potent cultural symbols, but such strategies can deflect attention from far more substantive goals.”

Now head over to Harvard University, a longstanding target since the movement’s inception back in 2012.  Shortly after the divestment campaign began, President Drew Faust issued a steadfast and comprehensive rejection of the movement in a 2013 letter addressed to the University community.

Still, the fact that President Faust categorically dismantled every half-baked argument for selling off fossil fuels did not deter a small group of student activists.  In 2014, the Harvard Climate Justice Coalition filed a lawsuit claiming investment in fossil fuel companies is “a breach of fiduciary and charitable duties as a public charity and nonprofit corporation,” asking the court to demand Harvard “immediately withdraw” its holdings.

Yet in another blow to the already rejected movement on campus, this month the Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled against the students in a unanimous decision– determining Harvard University is not legally required to divest.  The Appeals Court agreed with the lower court’s initial decision on two key points.  First, that the plaintiffs did not show any standing for bringing the lawsuit forward.  Second, the students claims of “fossil fuel investments have a chilling effect on academic freedom and have other negative impacts on their education at the university…were too speculative, too conclusory, and not sufficiently personal to establish standing.’’

Northeastern and Harvard are not the only schools to reject divestment.  MIT, a school world-renowned for its scientific research, rejected late last year, as did Tufts in 2014.  Divestment also hit a wall at Boston College when University Spokesperson Jack Dunn told the BC Gavel,   “[Divestment] would be done if there is a clear compelling case that shows a particular company is doing something unethical. We do not think that companies that are engaged in energy production are engaged in unethical conduct.”

Boston University skirted the issue, when its administration released a Climate Action Plan that included “efforts to avoid investments in companies that extract” coal and oil sands.  Divest BU’s response to that proposal was simply, “BU remains invested in the fossil fuel industry.”

A few state schools have agreed on empty gesture divestment proposals.  The University of Massachusetts, for instance, gained much fanfare when it agreed to sell off direct investments in fossil fuels—which ultimately amounted to a staggering 0.65 percent of its overall portfolio.  And Salem State University just voted to divest from coal, despite the fact that the “University has no current investments in coal.”

These hollow “wins” for the movement can hardly compare to the more widespread rejection of divestment we’ve seen across the country.  It seems no matter how you slice it, divestment activists keep striking out—especially, as it turns out, in Boston.