Amy Love

B/S Editor

aml7458@psu.edu

Recently on September 9th, Harvard University announced that they would no longer be investing their roughly  $41 billion endowments in fossil fuels. This announcement comes after many years of activism from students critiquing the school’s handling of funding. Students have been voicing their concerns since 2012 and have recently filed a complaint earlier this year with the Massachusetts attorney general in an attempt to pressurize the school into redistributing the endowment. 

In 2013, former president of Harvard, Drew G. Faust stated that: “We should, moreover, be wary of steps intended to instrumentalize our endowment in ways that would appear to position the University as a political actor rather than an academic institution. The endowment is a resource, not an instrument to impel social or political change.”

For years, Harvard University has maintained a similar position on their use of the endowment

and did not waive their stance despite what their students called for. Nearly a decade has passed with students protesting their university, only to now “not intend to make any future investments,” as said by current president of Harvard Larry Bacow. In an email that was received by the Harvard community, he also said that “climate change is the most consequential threat facing humanity.” 

This is a major step in combating climate change and it was a crucial step that needed to be done at some point in time. However, this should have been done when the consequences of fossil fuels were beginning to emerge. The justification of not wanting to be a “political actor” conveys the idea that how the university is regarded is a priority over what needs to be done. It also seems those in charge at Harvard University were aware of the consequences of investing the endowment in fossil fuels, but refused to act on it due to political controversies. 

In a sense, Harvard should not focus on making political statements; a student’s education should always be a priority for an academic institution. However, as leaders of an Ivy League university, with emerging future leaders, what example does this set for them? 

Students attending higher education will come across the dilemma of should I do what is right or should I do what is easier? Harvard University ended up posing as an example of that. 

 Activism for climate change has been occurring for years now and the threat to the planet has been made explicitly clear from scientists. The aftermath of Harvard University no longer investing into fossil fuels will be enormous, but it makes me wonder what the possibilities could be if the endowment was pulled from fossil fuels earlier and invested elsewhere. The endowment was approximately $41 million; that money could have made a substantial difference in new developing technologies.

Opinions can always change, and it is widely encouraged to do so when new information is presented. The options of what may have influenced Harvard University to decide to longer invest, reasons ranging from scientists claiming a “code red for humanity” or the complaint that was filed by students against the University. For whatever reason that influenced this decision, it was still needed. Harvard University no longer making future investments is a major leap in the right direction for climate change activists.