On Feb. 25, 2006, I gathered with more than 40 students on a cold Saturday morning on the then-Faunce House steps, urging the Corporation to divest Brown’s assets from foreign companies aiding the Sudanese government’s genocidal campaign in Darfur. At the conclusion of the rally, which was the pinnacle of a yearlong campaign, then-Chancellor Stephen Robert ’62 P’91 emerged from University Hall, grabbed our bullhorn and announced the University’s decision to divest from six problematic companies. We were thrilled — Brown became the fifth university in the country to divest in a movement that soon totaled over 50 institutions of higher learning. The move also helped spark successful efforts in Providence and Rhode Island.
Brown turned out to be a leader amongst universities in the international effort to end the genocide in Darfur. But divestment was just a spark.
In the months to follow, the University provided significant support and resources to a Darfur-focused conference that featured Mia Farrow and former National Security Advisor Anthony Lake. Former President Ruth Simmons frequently brought up Darfur with prominent speakers like Cornel West and the Chinese Ambassador to the United States and even provided funds for students to travel to Washington for a rally. Throughout her presidency, Simmons spoke truth to power and garnered national attention with her commitment to make Brown a leader in ending the genocide.
Given Brown’s decision to refrain from divesting from coal companies, why is this relevant? I am not a climate change expert, and I know the benefits and downsides of coal divestiture can be argued ad nauseam. But by actually making a decision not to divest, President Christina Paxson put herself, and the University, at the front and center of the climate change debate. With that offers the possibility that Brown can serve as a national leader on the issue of climate change, just as the University did with the genocide in Darfur. For the climate change movement, it is advantageous that the Corporation actually ruled on divestiture rather than kicking the can on the decision — which would have been a much more politically expedient conclusion. It forces Brown to actually confront the issue of climate change head-on.
Proponents of divesting will argue that the real position of leadership would have been to divest. But even so, Brown only held approximately $2 million, or .1 percent of its assets, in problematic coal companies. While I am not arguing whether the decision was right or wrong, it would have been largely symbolic.
But Paxson also acknowledged Brown’s vital role in “stemming the progression of climate change and mitigating its effects.” Instead of attempting to re-pressure the University to divest, which will almost certainly be futile, I urge student groups to ensure Paxson actually follows through on her promises. The letter to the community was a start, but creating a task force is much too weak. Students and the larger Brown community should urge the Corporation to come up with innovative solutions — from pushing state-level coal emission legislation at the State House to sponsoring a national conference to providing funding for post-graduate fellowships for students interested in founding climate change organizations in the Ocean State.
While one might argue it was necessary for Brown to divest in the case of Sudan in order to become a leader on the issue, George Washington University followed a different path. Refusing to divest its assets from companies doing business in Sudan, the university instead helped create a fellowship specifically for Sudanese students. This fall, while Darfur is almost completely forgotten, GWU welcomed Jacob Mator Aketch to campus, a South Sudanese man dedicated to bringing peace back to his region after receiving a degree. GWU has played a leading role in Sudan activism, despite of, and possibly because of, its decision not to divest from Sudan.
For climate change activists, I sympathize with the frustration towards the University’s decision. But I strongly believe that the route forward is not one of blame and shame. By actually stating its decision on the question of divestiture, Brown emphatically entered the climate change debate. And while there were few mechanisms at Brown’s disposal to make a difference on Sudan, there are many on climate change. Rather than shaming Paxson, let’s make sure she holds true to her promise to ensure that Brown “can lead and contribute to the societal response to climate change.” An effective leadership role might actually prove more influential than a decision to divest from coal companies.
Scott Warren ’09 can be reached for comment at scott.l.warren@gmail.com. He wishes he could divest his own tax dollars from funding the U. S. Congress.
ADVERTISEMENT
