September 21, 2020

Pro-Divestment Groups Now Looking to Gain Inside Influence

For years, divestment activists on Ivy League campuses wrote proposals and letters, held demonstrations and sit-ins, and yet have made little-to-no progress on convincing universities to eliminate fossil fuel investments. So, for the new decade, divestment activists developed a new strategy: change the make-up of these administrations from the inside out.

Recently, pro-divestment groups like Harvard Forward and Yale Forward have been getting attention for embracing digital campaigns to push for representation in their respective university’s administration.  The groups, backed by the newly formed group  The Boarding School, are looking to get their candidates on alumni ballots via petition, who if successful, will be on university boards. Recently, three of Harvard Forward’s five candidates were elected to serve on the Board of Overseers, which advises the Board of Trustees on various issues.

Let’s take a look at what is really going on here.

While these campaigns are referred to as “grass-roots,” they appear to be sophisticated and coordinated and have significant financial backing to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars—a new development for these typically under-the-radar elections.

Paid for By Outside Interests?

Harvard Forward and their sister campaign at Yale, called Yale Forward, operate and receive funding through the non-profit organization The Boarding School. And, since the original Harvard Forward campaign came into existence in November of 2019, they estimate they will raise close to $50,000 by the end of this year alone. On top of that, they also claim the average donation comes out to $200 dollars, which makes claims that college students are the prime contributors questionable.

Earlier this year, Harvard Forward released a statement which claimed that every dollar they have spent on the campaign has come from Harvard affiliates. But a closer look shows that this is unlikely to be the case. Harvard Forward’s donation portal directs you to their ActBlue donation page, where anyone and everyone can contribute, regardless if you’re affiliated to Harvard or not.

Opposition is High Amongst Alumni

The Harvard Alumni Association (HAA), a politically neutral organization, puts forth an annual list of highly qualified candidates to be elected to the Board of Overseers each year. These elections also allow outside candidates not included in HAA’s proposed list to make the ballot via a petition process. This year, when the HAA heard about Harvard Forward’s petition push, they too began asking questions about the group’s intentions and funding.

Vanessa Liu, the HAA’s vice president and member of the executive committee, wrote a letter in August of this year expressing her grave ethical concerns with regards to how Harvard Forward was going about getting its candidates elected to the Overseers’ board. Here’s an excerpt from Harvard Magazine on Liu’s letter:

“Beyond critiquing this platform (‘Not only is the group’s main goal outside the mission of the overseers,’), the letters states that “the organization…is leveraging atypical campaigning methods,’ which it says include ‘copious funding,’ ‘a full-time campaign staff, operating costs, and targeted ads’—all in contrast to the HAA committee nominees who ‘are discouraged from actively campaigning’ and “do not, and should not, run on a specific platform.’”

As Liu points to, Harvard Forward’s aim is not to elect candidates who will serve as general advisors on the Board of Overseers on matters of academic oversight and evaluation. More so, Harvard Forward is merely using heavily funded campaigns to push a fossil fuel divestment agenda.

And Harvard Officials Aren’t Happy Either

It looks like Harvard officials were displeased with Harvard Forward taking advantage of the most recent open election process—The Harvard Corporation and Board of Overseers just recently approved new recommendations that limit members nominated by petition rather than HAA’s nominating committee to six out of the 30 seats.

In addition, both groups also approved a policy that would mandate a close monitoring of campaign “trends and practices” so that these elections do not become full fledged political campaigns. In addition, the working group report identified a concern of niche advocacy groups hijacking the alumni elections for their own ends:

“We are concerned by the prospect that, without a change in the current system, the Board might before long come to be populated more by members of issue-driven caucuses, sponsored by advocacy groups, and less by individuals who have emerged from a deliberative process in which a nominating committee focuses on their capacity to fulfill the broad-ranging responsibilities of board service,” the report reads. “We regard these concerns as sufficiently significant to warrant a change in current methods.”

Transparency Concerns Growing

Harvard Forward, and by affiliation Yale Forward, have little to no transparency with regards to who exactly is contributing to their cause.  And while Harvard Forward continues to contend they are a small grassroots group, they still enjoy broad based support by prominent environmental activists like billionaire Tom Steyer and 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben.

Bottom line:

The tactics change, but the funding and destructive goals have inevitably stayed the same. As time has hold time and time again, grassroots activists quickly become overshadowed by wealthier, more experienced environmentalists’ activists who can amplify their messages.