This week Brown’s Corporation chose not to divest in the 15 largest coal-producing companies in the United States after about a year of protesting and petitioning by Brown students, alumni, staff and faculty. Besides President Paxson’s letter, which can be found on Brown’s homepage, I think that the Huffington Post has a great article arguing in favor of the opposing side here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-henn/brown-university-coal_b_4168174.html
One of the most difficult and controversial elements of Paxson’s letter regards the complexities of the “social harm” of coal usage. Clearly, coal is causing out environment to deteriorate, a major issue for those of us who will experience increasingly worse conditions as time goes on. The impact of coal on our health and the environment is unquestionable, yet Paxson seems to question how influential Brown’s divestiture could be in terms of altering climate change in the long run. The Corporation believes that investing time and money into Brown’s creation of technology that can reduce the impact of harmful emissions or replace coal would be more effective. Yet on the other hand, Paxson cites poorer countries’ need for coal to survive, indicating the social harm that could be caused by reducing support of coal, in a sense; she also mentions that coal is used in the manufacturing of cement and steel. If we think about this side of the argument logically, she is basically saying that our divestiture would increase social harm. When we consider the first statement, she claims that social harm would not be impacted greatly by divestiture, yet in the second that divestiture would practically ruin poor countries around the world. Should we not promote the elimination of coal in a country that can afford it (assuming we get our national budget together)?
Another interesting piece of Paxson’s argument regards the fact that divesting will not clarify the complexities of scientific and policy-related problems that coal usage has caused. Although I agree that divesting won’t necessarily clarify these issues and, as she claims, may solely highlight the fact that coal is harmful, I do feel that divestiture could certainly be an outlet to begin sharing the multifaceted issues related to both coal usage and the ceasing of coal usage.
In the Huffington Post article linked above, they discuss the Corporation’s connections with these coal companies. One of the members is the CEO of a large national company that supports most of these coal companies. I fully understand that maintaining business relationships and possible financial partnerships is key to keeping a business above ground. Brown too, through these investments, may be receiving support from these companies. Having worked at a non-profit this summer, I understand the difficulty of maintaining a working budget; however, if these financial and relationship issues were at the heart of the divestment decisions, I wish the school would provide this information. Both sides of the divestment debacle can be argued for and opposed, especially with the slightly contradictory reasoning provided, but when ethical decisions are on the line, I think it is important that the school know.
Brown seems to be increasingly worried about reputation and finances. It seems as though everyday friends of mine who desire to pursue careers in social justice, education, or really anything except for finance and consulting, face prejudice here. Although I understand Brown’s decision to eliminate any discussion of reputation and finances in this public letter, I think they should be considered and shared. It seems that they believe our ethical prejudices may overwhelm the discussion of these very real business problems, but I feel that Brown students are certainly intelligent enough to consider all of the complexities of this coal divestiture, even if our desire to make a more ethical rather than business savvy decision wins in the end.