Campus Divided on “Divestment”

The Academy’s Environmental Action Committee (EAC) extended the debate of divestment on campus by hosting a panel on Tuesday night to hear the opinions, arguments and questions that surround the issue. The panel, moderated by Principal Tom Hassan, included participation from President of the Trustees Tom Hutton, Conservation Law Foundation lawyer Christophe Courchesne ‘98, Better Future Project representatives Shea Riester and Sophie Robinson ’07 and Student Council President senior Alice Ju. Approximately 100 members of the Exeter community came to the meeting.During the panel, Hutton presented the financial outlook of the Academy and how choices such as divestment could impact the budgeting, while Courchesne, Riester and Robinson explained why Exeter should divest from fossil fuels. Alternative options besides divestment, such as investment in clean energy, were also explored. Many panelists referenced Friday’s Assembly, where Tom Steyer ‘75, a successful asset manager and environmental activist, spoke about the advantages of divestment.Hutton, who is in town for the PEA Board of Trustees meeting which begins today, stated that he was hesitant to consider divestment as a part of Exeter’s investment strategy, although he remained completely supportive of sustainability practices.“The PEA Trustees do not feel any pressure on the divestment issue. There are many institutions that are highly dedicated to responsibility and sustainability that have decided not to have their endowments divest from fossil fuel stocks,” he said.In addition, Hutton also argued that, because of the current nature of investment firms, the revenue generated by the endowment would take a hit if Exeter divested.“Since there are very few available investment fund opportunities that are free of fossil fuel investments, we would, in the short term at least, be forced to take on an entirely new strategy of investing,” he said. “I have no doubt that at least in the near term, this would result in less income from the endowment and therefore a reduced budget.”Other institutions reflected Hutton’s view on divestment. Drew Gilpin Faust, currently president of Harvard University, recently released a like-minded statement about divestment.“[Our endowment] exists to serve an academic mission — to carry out the best possible programs of education and research,” Faust wrote. “We maintain a strong presumption against divesting investment assets for reasons unrelated to the endowment’s financial strength and its ability to advance our academic goals. We should, moreover, be very 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.”Riester, as a representative from the Better Future Project, an organization that aims to help communities transition beyond fossil fuels, argued against Hutton and Faust’s perspectives.“The main argument that I’m afraid that students are taking away from this is that if Exeter divested, that they would lose money, which to me, has not been proven to you all,” Riester said. “You need to make sure that this is proven to you all in a way that you see the studies, research and the models that show that Exeter would in fact, lose money. Don’t just listen to what your leaders are saying; you really need to prove that.”Moreover, many of the pro-divestment panelists stressed the importance of starting a social movement against fossil fuel companies.“The goal isn’t to hurt the fossil fuel companies by us divesting,” Robinson said. “Financially, they couldn’t care less. The goal is for Exeter to start a movement. We need a social movement that will demand that change. To have Exeter be profiting from companies that are destroying our own future is unacceptable.”Ju brought the student perspective to the panel and raised some issues which are important to the student body, such as how financial aid would be affected by divestment.“I brought up the moral imperative of keeping Exeter open to ‘youth of every quarter’ by offering financial aid,” Ju said. “One of the other panelists attacked that point, but Mr. Hutton pointed out that a certain portion of our endowment is specifically set out for FA and if that were to shrink as a result of divestment, Exeter would have to accept fewer underprivileged students.”Although the panel proved to be a helpful forum of discussion for Exeter, many members of the community still remained split, as the panelists were, on the issue of divestment.Science instructor Elizabeth Stevens believed that divestment is a viable option that the school should undertake. “I think our school should pursue it, not all at once, but over the next five years. Tom Steyer, one of the most successful fund managers there is, was able to divest his $1.5 billion portfolio, why can't we?” she asked.Stevens continued, “I think if a school like Exeter was to be one of the schools taking a lead on this, it would be a bold statement to the world, and that we are not going to support the companies that are wrecking our climate. Others would follow us, and the social movement would grow.”Economics and history instructor Giorgio Secondi did not support divestment and offered a different perspective, pointing to some of the hypocritical elements that many identify as a problem with divestment.“Divestment doesn't make sense to me. On a daily basis we choose to buy products that exist because of the fossil fuel industry. Every time we ride in a car or fly on a plane, we're indirectly buying fuel and therefore oil,” Secondi said. “The focus should be on changing our consumption patterns, not our investments. Changes in consumption also provide the best incentives for the industry to change its practices. But trying to sabotage the very companies whose products we buy daily makes no sense to me.”Students, too remained divided on the question of divestment. “We believe that divestment is something that we should be doing, but it’s really up to the Trustees right now,” EAC co-head upper Brian Byun said. “The best we can do as students is to show student support for divestment, and I think the panelists here have shown the arguments pretty well, and I think that will help students make decisions and support divestment.”Upper Francis Lee disagreed, not fully convinced about the financial impacts of divestment. “I’m against divestment because I like numbers,” Lee said. “I haven’t been convinced fully by the panelists who try to appeal to me in no other way than appealing to my emotions, which frankly is not good enough grounds to sway my opinion on how to invest money.”