Divest and divulge

Last Tuesday, the administration rejected Divest Duke’s proposal to remove investments from the top 200 publicly traded fossil fuel companies. A student-led campaign established in Fall 2012, Divest Duke is concerned with the contradiction between the University’s goals to combat climate change and its investment in various fossil fuel industries. Although Duke’s energy initiatives are laudable steps in the right direction, the University should commit on all fronts and increase transparency in its investment processes.

When the initiative launched its campaign earlier this Fall, more than 250 people signed on in only the first five days. In November, the Duke Advisory Committee on Investment Responsibility—a panel of faculty and students—unanimously recommended against this proposal. On Tuesday of last week, Brodhead released a letter announcing his support of the recommendation.

The committee cited three main rationales against divestment. These included economic considerations, lack of evidence supporting the tangible efficacy of the acts and that “Duke has even more potent means than divestment for expressing the institution’s ethical commitments on climate and energy issues.” These more “potent” means refer to initiatives ranging from “the prominence of the Nicholas School of Environment” to promoting these programs through “teaching, research and training in real-world problem solving.” The letter emphasizes Duke’s commitment to sustainability and the Board of Trustee’s charge to be “mindful” of this issue in discussing future investment strategies.

Although we applaud the University’s existing efforts towards climate and energy sustainability, we note the discontinuity in its actions. Even as Duke invests in energy initiatives like the Nicholas School to promote a cleaner environment, it is also funded by investments made in fossil fuel companies that continue to exasperate climate change. We may have teaching, research and training in “real-world problem solving,” but this does not absolve the University of its culpable investment in the reason we have these “real-world” problems to begin with.

If the University is truly dedicated to climate change, it should commit on all fronts. We understand there may be potent economic reasoning to reject the proposal, but change can only be seriously realized when the principles are not half-heartedly but, rather, fully and genuinely embodied. Divesting is not merely a symbolic step; it is a crucial step towards building a sustainable Duke.

Beyond the question of divestment, however, is the issue of transparency in the University’s investments—an issue addressed in the student campaign for endowment transparency, Duke Open. On this front, Divest Duke is just one of several campaigns in recent years demanding divestment. In Spring 2012, for example, the Coalition for a Conflict Free Duke succeeded in passing a resolution through the Board of Trustees to crack down on companies using conflict minerals in their technology. Yet, three years later, despite the campaign’s success, there are still no means to follow the University’s implementation. Not only is this opacity problematic for its lack of accountability, it also prevents the hundreds of people who invested energy and time into proposing Divest Duke from accurately assessing the claims made by the University in rejecting proposals in the first place. By increasing transparency and access to information, members of the Duke community can themselves assess whether they agree or disagree with the interpretations—economic or otherwise—of the ACIR and other such bodies.