3 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(02/13/20 10:57am)
Did you know that an on-campus organization accepts money from fossil fuel billionaires? The Alexander Hamilton Forum (AHF) supposedly offers students “an opportunity to think critically about the relevance of political and constitutional theory to a range of contemporary debates in American public life,” according to its site. The forum, however, receives funding from the Institute for Human Studies (IHS), an organization that has received over $35 million from the Koch family — who runs one of the largest oil and gas conglomerates in the country and is one of the largest forces guiding the right-wing agenda. Charles Koch currently sits on the IHS Board of Directors.
On Feb. 20, the AHF will host a debate between two scholars arguing whether or not we need a Green New Deal. You may have seen the posters around campus — seems fine, right? Somebody arguing “Yes, we need one,” and somebody else arguing “No, we don’t.” Yet while this debate may seem innocuous at first, the AHF’s agenda in hosting this event is not harmless. When the AHF hosts “discussions” and “debates” like these, it undermines the validity of progressive ideals. The speakers don’t have to disprove every argument as long as they can plant doubts in our heads. By hosting the debate, the organizers of the forum choose which questions to ask, therefore reinforcing and normalizing discourses that question climate activism.
A debate, even if it contains two differing opinions, is not a politically neutral event. Context matters! And in this context, an organization funded by Big Oil money is organizing a dialogue about a congressional resolution that would rapidly transition the country away from oil. This Big Oil money is Koch Industries, a company owned by the Koch family whose operations include but are not limited to oil and gas exploration, pipelines, oil refining and chemical and fertilizer production. Charles Koch, one of the wealthiest people in the world, jointly inherited Koch Industries with his now-deceased brother. Their father, Fred Koch, made his fortune building oil refineries for Hitler and Stalin.
The Koch brothers have been donating money to colleges and universities across the United States for decades. This funding often comes with strings attached, allowing Koch Industries to influence hiring and curriculum decisions. One notable example occurred at Florida State University in 2007, when the Charles Koch Foundation offered their economics department millions of dollars under several conditions: the curriculum would align with Charles Koch’s deregulatory economic philosophy, the Foundation would partially control hiring of new faculty members, and Bruce Benson would remain chair of the economics department. Benson noted that “If we are not willing to hire such faculty, they are not willing to fund us.”
Taking the AHF’s funding into account, we want to question why the forum is hosting a debate on the Green New Deal. The AHF hosts various speakers and debates on campus, and is directed by Political Science Professor Keegan Callanan; on its steering committee are Political Science Professor Murray Dry, International Politics and Economics Professor Allison Stanger and Executive in Residence Jim Douglas ’72. While Callanan claims the program does not take direction from its conservative donors when inviting speakers, the forum is responsible for inviting Ryszard Legutko, a far-right Polish scholar and politician whose party is known for its homophobic and xenophobic orientations, and Ross Douthat, a conservative columnist for the New York Times who promoted American exceptionalism when he came to Middlebury in the fall.
Given the AHF’s funding and the previous speakers it has brought to campus, we doubt the forum is inviting speakers in a good-hearted attempt to practice democracy and explore in earnest two sides of a debate.
This concerns us. The Green New Deal is certainly not perfect, but it represents an attempt by members of Congress to foreground the struggles of indigenous, marginalized and working class people in a transition to clean energy, stable jobs and a more equitable world. It is unique in its unrepenting and progressive vision of what this country could be. The debate hosted by the AHF chips away at students’ struggle to enact transformations towards justice by dictating the terms of our discussions, and by silently and coercively controlling what kinds of climate action appear reasonable.
To affect students attending the debate, the AHF simply has to introduce enough doubt about the Green New Deal that it no longer seems to be a viable option. To Koch Industries, apathy or confusion is just as good as outright opposition; it means fewer people will support any change to the status quo.
We want to be clear that we are not arguing against open dialogue and debate. Dialogue, especially on college campuses, is vital to shaping informed opinions. But we do not support debates on environmental issues when these debates are indirectly sponsored by the fossil fuel industry. The AHF cannot possibly provide a fair and two-sided representation of political opinions in this context. Koch money has no place in our college.
Because we refuse to let a group funded by fossil fuel tycoons dictate the narrative of campus events, a group of students will host an open, alternate event at the same time to discuss resistance on Middlebury’s campus: “What Does it Mean to be a Student at Middlebury in the Age of Climate Catastrophe?: A Koch-Free Conversation.” Occurring on Thursday, Feb. 20, from 4:30 to 6 p.m. in Axinn 219, this event is for anyone who thinks there is something wrong with allowing Koch-funded groups to host events on Middlebury’s campus and who wants to do something about it.
Luckily, students have been resisting for years. We want to have our own dialogue, one where our voices and your voices are heard and considered. Students will provide an introduction to activism at Middlebury and connect various campaigns across campus against injustice. That means when you show up, you have a hand in forming both the discussion and the future of resistance at Middlebury.
Rather than once again debate the validity of the Green New Deal, we’re asking: What bothers you? What angers you? What scares you? Where do you see injustice? Unlike those organizing the AHF debate, we want to know who you are and hear your responses.
Let’s have a conversation, Koch-free.
Tara Santi is a member of the class of 2020 and Lucy Weiss is a member of the class of 2020.5.
(01/17/19 10:59am)
In recent months, we have become aware of concerns that divestment might present a risk to financial aid. Divest Middlebury would like to state publicly that the accessibility of our institution is a top priority for our group. We are a climate justice organization that stands for racial, gender and economic equity. Financial aid is a priority of our group as a whole and also of personal importance to many of our organizers. In writing this op-ed we also hope to stress the economic benefits of divestment and reaffirm our commitment to our fellow students. Arguments that pit financial aid and environmental justice against each other are unfair and inaccurate. These arguments ultimately put the burden for climate inaction on Middlebury College’s most vulnerable students.
There is ample evidence that divestment from fossil fuels is a financially savvy decision. In the official referendum ratified by the student body, SGA and the faculty, Divest Middlebury asked the Board to pledge to divest all holdings in the top 200 publicly traded fossil fuel corporations over a five-year time period. This extended timeline would allow the college’s investment managers to divest holdings in a controlled way, ensure low financial risk, and reinvest in more profitable and sustainable industries.
[pullquote speaker="" photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]There is no evidence that divested financial institutions experience increased losses.[/pullquote]
In 2010, MSCI, a prominent provider of stock market indices and analysis, created two investment indices of the largest 9,500 corporations, one that included fossil fuel investments and another that did not. Over the next five years, the fossil-free portfolio averaged an annual return .97 percent higher than the index including fossil fuel corporations. If $1 billion had been invested in the fossil free index in 2010, it would now be worth $2.24 billion, whereas its counterpart would be worth $2.13 billion. In 2017, fossil fuels were also the second worst performing sector in the S&P 500 stock market index, losing four percent compared to market gains of 19 percent. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, a fortune that made its money in the fossil fuel industry, recently published a report stating that the Fund’s success has shown that fossil fuel divestment “can be done without causing harm to the overall performance of your investment portfolio.” These sentiments are shared by the nearly 1,000 other institutions that have pledged to divest. A recent analysis by investment strategist Jeremy Grantham found that there was no evidence that divested financial institutions experience increased losses. Similarly, another study demonstrates the potential financial penalties for not divesting, suggesting that New York State pension funds have lost $22 billion by staying invested in fossil fuels.
Stranded assets theory confirms the financial risk of not divesting: continued investment only exposes portfolios to risk, since marketed valuation of fossil fuel corporations is contingent upon the burning of 942 gigatons of carbon reserves. Fossil fuel corporations cannot approach their market valuation without ignoring the Paris Climate Agreement, which restricts future carbon emissions to 800 gigatons. Failure to divest puts our endowment at unnecessary risk of the carbon bubble caused by stranded assets. Furthermore, when other institutions of higher education have divested, donations have significantly increased. For all of these reasons, we believe that divestment is the fiscally responsible action.
Even in the unlikely case that Middlebury loses returns due to divestment, losses should not impact financial aid. Investments in the top 200 publicly traded fossil fuel companies make up 0.6 percent of Middlebury’s endowment, with 5 percent of the endowment having exposure in the entire fossil fuel industry. Currently, 25 percent of Middlebury’s endowment goes toward financial aid. In the case of any loss due to discontinued exposure to the fossil fuel industry, risk would be spread evenly across the endowment. It is unlikely that fossil fuels outperform the rest of the market and all alternative investments, yet even if fossil fuels outperformed the other 95 percent of investments by 10 BP points (.1 percent), the impact of not being invested in the fossil fuels industry would be $55,000 from our total endowment. This would result in a total loss of $13,750 from financial aid, a minimal loss in comparison to millions our school commits to financial aid each year. In the past, Middlebury has not cut its institutional commitment to funding financial aid in years of poor endowment performance. For this reason, individuals who argue that financial aid should be the first thing to be cut reveal much more about their own priorities than the priorities of the college or the divest movement.
[pullquote speaker="" photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]Divestment represents an important action that Middlebury can take to condemn climate change, support the college mission statement, and protect students’ futures.[/pullquote]
It is unfair and insulting to use students on financial aid as an excuse for inaction and the perpetuation of injustice. Divestment represents an important action that Middlebury can take to condemn climate change, support the college mission statement, and protect students’ futures. We would like to point out that students of more vulnerable socio-economic backgrounds are statistically more likely than wealthier classmates to experience negative impacts from fossil fuel infrastructure and environmental injustice. We are here to learn the skills necessary to protect our families and home communities from climate change. Falsely using our education as an argument to continue investment in the same industry that is hurting us is both cruel and flawed.
In the end, discourse that frames divestment as being at odds with financial aid is fearmongering. We know that divestment and financial aid can go hand in hand and we are thrilled to stand for both. We regret that our fellow classmates may have felt nervous about the financial impacts of divestment and will happily participate in further conversation about concerns regarding this issue. As always, our movement is open to everyone, especially those most marginalized by the climate crisis. We will not allow our educations to be used as a rhetorical device with which to jeopardize our futures as we move towards climate justice together.
(10/04/18 9:59am)
This past Friday, Divest Middlebury took a major step towards our goal of finally aligning the college endowment with our mission statement. At 11:30 a.m., three students from Divest Middlebury arrived at Old Chapel to present the students’ position on fossil fuel divestment and the necessary steps the school must take going forward. Students gathered outside of the building to hear the presentation, intent on learning more about the movement that is currently gaining so much worldwide momentum. This day came as a result of years of effort by multiple generations of student and community activists; we are honored to build upon the work that initially created the Divest movement, and the influence of previous students’ activism has remained essential to guiding our cause forward.
Friday morning, three students met with the Board of Trustees to present the case for fossil fuel divestment on behalf of the student body. The presentation lasted 15 minutes and was met with applause and support from members of the Board. Trustees were engaged and curious; they inquired about paths forward and were supportive of the conversation. The sounds of chanting, singing and shouting from student activists surrounding the building added to the urgency emphasized in the presentation. Our movement is more than conversations behind closed doors, but a campus-wide issue; in fact, it was student power that made the presentation possible.
Last spring, the Middlebury student body demanded divestment through an SGA referendum in which 80 percent of students supported fossil fuel divestment with a 70 percent voter turnout, the largest in recent memory. Students pressed the Board to pledge divestment of all endowment assets that include any of the top 200 fossil fuel companies. This referendum brought the issue to the Board’s attention and showed them an irrefutable truth: divestment is a worldwide movement that addresses a crisis threatening members of our community at school, at home, and all over the globe. While divestment alone isn’t the solution to that crisis, it is a tactic that can fight it.
Middlebury students do not come from a single background unaffected by environmental struggles. We come from the coast of California, from mountains on fire, from decimated coal mining towns in Tennessee, from wetlands in Florida ravaged by development, from communities feeling the impact of super storms and hurricanes. We come as immigrants who have fled the impacts of drought and resource wars, as international students from Indonesia, Siberia, Mexico, Brazil, Zimbabwe, New Zealand and countless other impacted nations. Furthermore, the Middlebury community extends beyond students, encompassing low-income staff members impacted by changing weather in Vermont, faculty with the Vermont Gas Pipeline in their backyards and alumni and families scattered across this world. We come from farms without soil, from urban environmental justice areas clogged with power plants and oil trains and refineries, from communities torn apart by fracking and pipelines, from nations slowly going underwater.
Here in Vermont, Lyme disease rates are skyrocketing, summer programs at Middlebury are interrupted by heat waves and winters are getting both shorter and warmer. As a board member pointed out after the presentation, climate change is one of the most challenging problems our generation will ever face. Global warming is not a problem contained to the scope of traditional environmental thought. It is a crisis where oppressive forces intersect and augment—a crisis that disproportionately devastates already marginalized populations.
Middlebury currently owns $53.7 million worth of the fossil fuel industry. As such, the college lends its reputation for sustainability and its social credibility to an industry whose base economic model requires the continued burning of fossil fuel reserves.
Using our school’s name and money, the fossil fuel industry continues to feed climate change. The money that funds our education should not be used as a tool of the fossil fuel industry at the expense of the future. It is wrong to finance our education with a strategy that supports the destruction of our planet and our home communities.
On Friday, we told our Board of Trustees that continued investment in the fossil fuel industry is unacceptable. We must end our support for this industry — both for justice and for the future. We are confident that the Board will align Middlebury’s endowment with the College’s values of sustainability, community, and global leadership. After the presentation, Divest Middlebury received an email confirming that the Board is considering paths forward and will be releasing an official statement by the January 2019 Board meeting. To the Middlebury student body — thank you for your support. To those suffering from climate change and other injustices — we see you and we stand with you.
This article was submitted on behalf of Divest Middlebury.