TRANSPARENCY:
How accessible they make information to the Harvard community and general public about their work managing Harvard’s $42 billion endowment.
D-
Did they make
We graded members of the Harvard Corporation committee on shareholder responsibility on their climate commitments.
We graded members of the Harvard Corporation committee on shareholder responsibility on their climate commitments.
Here's How We Graded Them:
Here's How We Graded Them:
The Harvard Corporation does not publish the times or location of its meetings, and rarely engages with its university constituents outside of the occasional — if lucky, annual — meeting, where few commitments are made and the Corporation often throws around empty rhetoric.
Recognition of a climate emergency:
How they understand the severity of the climate crisis (or not).
F
Harvard has continued to hide behind the myth of engagement with fossil fuel companies, despite the overwhelming evidence that such companies are not aligning their business models with climate science. It is also ignoring the fact that these companies continue working to undermine the bold climate policy necessary to decarbonize the economy along with the work of Harvard’s own leading climate scientists. By refusing to recognize the financial risks associated with fossil fuel investments, the Corporation is also failing to perform its basic fiduciary duty and ensure the long-term financial stability of the institution.
willingness to have an open discussion:
Are they operating democratically and in good faith?
F
Instead of supporting open and democratic election or appointment processes, Harvard continues to internally select the student and faculty members of important committees that shape Harvard’s climate policy, including the Advisory Committee on Shareholder Responsibility and the Presidential Committee on Sustainability. Meanwhile, when pro-divestment voices do break through and gain a foothold in university governance, the Corporation has preferred to change the election rules in order to help ensure university-approved outcomes, rather than listen to the voice of its community. Recent reforms to the makeup of the Corporation, such as its increase in size, have done little to change the fact that, when it comes to climate, the Corporation has failed to represent the clear will of the Harvard community.
Responsiveness to the Harvard Community:
How they engage with/respond to the Harvard community.
F
The Harvard Corporation often refuses to meaningfully engage with its constituents. After the College’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences voted overwhelmingly in favor of fossil fuel divestment, the Harvard Corporation ignored their request and instead came out with a loophole-ridden commitment to make the endowment net-zero by 2050. After a coalition of students, faculty, and alumni made clear the inadequacies of this commitment and pointed out seven clear ways in which it could be strengthened in a letter to the Harvard Corporation, they received no real response. Only months later, when the Fossil Fuel Divest Harvard campaign met with the Corporation Committee on Responsibility, did Corporation members even meaningfully acknowledge the letter’s existence.
Fossil Fuel Industry conflicts of interest:
Do they have personal relationships with the fossil fuel industry?
F
Multiple members of the Harvard Corporation have clear ties to the fossil fuel industry. Paul J. Finnegan’s firm has in the past made fossil fuel investments, Timothy R. Barakett’s firm Atticus Capital invested in energy and fossil fuels, David M. Rubenstein’s company The Carlyle Group has investments in fossil fuel corporations, and Theodore V. Wells, Jr. has served as a lawyer for ExxonMobil. These clear entanglements with the fossil fuel industry lead the Corporation to receive a failing grade.
Position on divestment:
Do they support divesting from the fossil fuel industry?
F
This one is pretty self-explanatory. No members of the Harvard Corporation have voiced support for divestment.
AND here are their individual grades:
AND here are their individual grades:
Bacow is openly against divestment because he thinks that it would risk “alienating and demonizing” fossil fuel companies. Instead, he suggests that Harvard should “engage” with the fossil fuel industry to work with them on climate solutions. He has turned down repeated formal and informal offers by students to engage in conversation regarding divestment, but his increased dialogue with faculty and occasional meetings with students about divestment are representative of some level of responsiveness. His refusal to acknowledge the proven efficacy of divestment and futility of shareholder engagement shows a continued embrace of the industry’s vision for the future, and his unwillingness to listen to the clear consensus of students, faculty, and alumni regarding the endowment is the opposite of inclusive. But students, faculty, and alumni continue to hope that he’ll be willing to engage in meaningful discourse — because as President, he has significant ability to change directions and work towards a better future for his students.
Lee has expressed willingness to listen to Harvard community members, including organizers with FFDH. But our words haven’t budged his opinions on divestment; if he truly understood the urgency of the climate crisis, he might reconsider the whole “shareholder engagement” strategy.
Finnegan’s eagerness to “engage” with fossil fuel companies doesn’t bode well for his willingness to adequately respond to the climate crisis. That, plus his strong and obstinate rejection of divestment, earn him F’s across the board.
Tilghman didn’t use her influence at Princeton to push for divestment, and has yet to take a public stance on the issue as a member of the Harvard Corporation. Her only engagement with our campaign to date has been her attendance in a meeting between our representatives and the CCSR.
Cuéllar has spoken powerfully about the importance of combating climate change publicly and in meetings with divestment student activists, but has yet to take any definitive position on divestment.