Staff ed: Transparency committee offers spark of hope

Over the past few years, Washington University students and staff have received a slew of political sentiments from Chancellor Mark Wrighton via email. Since November 2016 alone, he’s touched upon everything from a state cigarette tax to the continuation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.

One topic that is noticeably absent from his emails, however, is noticeably present on Danforth Campus: divestment from fossil fuels.

Last April, Wrighton seemingly unequivocally stated that the University would not divest, as “the investment policy will not be changed or used to support political, social, or other agendas.” To this, Fossil Free WashU—a campaign pushing for divestment run through the student environmental organization Green Action—responded that “the chancellor cannot claim that divesting from fossil fuels would be a political decision without also acknowledging that investing in them is inherently political.”

Now, the mood seems to have shifted. Last Friday, representatives from Fossil Free WashU and WU/FUSED—a socioeconomic diversity advocacy group on campus—met with Wrighton to discuss the formation of a “transparency committee,” one created to open the doors to a conversation between the administration and those arguing for divestment. Surprisingly, the administration was responsive.

The committee—comprised of undergraduates, graduate students and faculty members nominated by Fossil Free and approved by the chancellor—represents a step in the right direction. For a school that prides itself on its commitments to environmental sustainability on a regular basis, continuing to invest in fossil fuels seems hypocritical.

In a comparison study of similar universities and institutions, Fossil Free has estimated that 3 to 5 percent of Wash. U.’s endowment is invested in two energy funds: Kimmeridge Energy Net Profit Fund and Foundation Energy Fund, together totaling up to over $70 million. However, this approximation is just that—an estimate. As a part of the new transparency committee, student representatives have suggested an open exchange of information, one that includes definitive numbers on the total amount of money currently devoted toward fossil fuel development. The University’s lack of transparency on the issue seems to suggest that there is something to hide: If there’s supposedly nothing wrong with continuing to invest, why not erase the giant question mark currently clouding the issue?

Meanwhile, on the Danforth and Medical Campuses, energy usage has remained constant, despite a near doubling in terms of square footage. Each year, all Residential Colleges compete to reduce their energy usage. The University offers free Metro passes to all faculty, students and staff, encouraging the use of public transportation—so why are our macroeconomic commitments to the same ideals a step behind?

Divesting from fossil fuels may not have an immediate, tangible effect on the global state of the environment, but it represents the University’s prioritization of their pledges to their students and faculty. To perfectly sum it up, Brian Talbot, a lecturer in the philosophy department, said, “profiting from other people’s suffering, even if you don’t contribute to that suffering, is pretty questionable, especially if you can very easily not do so.” As students who pay to attend a prestigious university, we at the very least deserve for our school to ascribes to the same principles we do.

At this point, the issue goes one step further: There’s a lack of listening. A petition launched by Fossil Free last year garnered almost 1,000 student and 64 faculty signatures. Alumni, professors and student groups have verbalized their concerns and detailed their demands since 2008, when the first protests occurred. In the face of University sanctions and police action, the group’s message has remained unwavering in its 10 years of advocacy work.

But the agreement to host a committee cannot be the end of the discussion. If nothing comes out of these talks, they will have been for nothing. We hope that those involved will not let the issue of diverstment get stuck in committee purgatory, in a delicate balance between existing and yet lacking effectiveness.

While the University has not promised to divest, the committee shows that it is at least open to discussing future agreements. Administrators have the chance to be on the right side of history and stand up as leaders to inspire similar organizations to do the same. In the coming years, the prominence and influence of the issue is only going to grow. Without change, we face irreversible damage to our planet.

Sign up for the email edition

Stay up to date with everything happening at Washington University and beyond.

Subscribe