Students, alumni, and university leaders across the Ivy League have pointed out the high costs and empty impacts divestment could have on college campuses. Here’s what some stakeholders are saying about members of the Ivy League and their continued rejection of divestment:

• Christopher Eisengruber, President of Princeton University: “No,” said Eisgruber, when asked if the University has any future plans for divestment. “The answer is right now, we do not have any such plans…We make a difference in the world through our teaching and research and the quality of that teaching and research, rather than by taking a symbolic stance with our endowment.” (February 2020)
• Lawrence Bacow, President of Harvard University: “Amid our larger academic and institutional efforts, debate over investment policy—including demands to divest from the fossil fuel industry—will no doubt continue at Harvard and beyond. This debate is healthy. And while I, like my predecessors, believe that engaging with industry to confront the challenge of climate change is ultimately a sounder and more effective approach for our university, I respect the views of those who think otherwise. We may differ on means. But I believe we seek the same ends—a decarbonized future in which life on Earth can flourish for ages to come.” (September-October 2019)
• Official Statement from Cornell University: “The principal purpose of the Cornell endowment is to provide income for the advancement of the educational and mission-related objectives to which the university is dedicated, and the first responsibility of the Board of Trustees is to ensure that the funds are managed properly and used for the educational and programmatic purposes for which they were donated.” (February 2020)
• John P. Holdren, Professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard, Fmr. Obama Science Advisor: “It’s not only not the best form of action, it’s a counterproductive form of action. It’s counterproductive because it would lead many Harvard faculty and students to imagine they’d struck an effective blow against climate change—and would likely reduce their focus on more productive measures—when it would actually be a misdirected blow. Just advocating for it is distracting people from measures that would actually be effective.” (April 2020)
• David Swensen, Chief Investment Officer at Yale: “Yale’s managers make critical decisions about what investments are selected for Yale’s portfolio and what issue are raised with company management teams. Given the nature of Yale’s investment strategy, direct dialogue with its managers is the most effective means of addressing climate change risk in the portfolio.” (February 2020)
• David Swensen, Chief Investment Officer at Yale: “If we stopped producing fossil fuels today we would all die. We wouldn’t have food. We wouldn’t have transportation. We wouldn’t have heat. We wouldn’t have air conditioning. We wouldn’t have clothes…It’s very nice to protest the fact that we have fossil fuel producers in the portfolio, but the real problem is the consumption, and everyone of us…is a consumer.” (November 2019)
• Dustin Tingley, Professor of Government at Harvard: “Today, I will vote no to divestment, but yes to investment in the research, teaching, and learning around climate change. Yes to investment by Harvard in this vital space that has clearly struck a nerve among our students, staff, and faculty.” (April 2020)
• Donald Opatrny, Chair of the Cornell University Board of Trustees: “The university’s endowment must not be regarded primarily as an instrument of political or social power; its principal purpose is to provide income for the advancement of the university’s educational objectives.” (February 2016)
• Christina Paxson, President of Brown University: In an interview for The Brown Daily Herald, Paxson commented that she would stand with her prior position: “Right or wrong, (divestment) is just not effective. I don’t see how it does any good. In some ways, if people think that that’s all they need to do, and that it lets them off the hook … that’s a really easy way out of doing the hard work of actually making real change.” (December 2019).
• Stephen Pacala, Frederick D. Petrie Professor in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Princeton University: In an article for the Daily Princetonian, Pacala commented that the ethical significance of removing financial backing is diluted by the fact that the campus and its individuals will continue to rely on fossil fuels. (February 2020)

These voices have a right to be concerned about the unintended and direct consequences that fossil fuel divestment would have on their college campuses. Leaders in the Ivy League should be focused on solutions, not costly empty gesture divestment.