I have long considered myself an activist. I have tried to “change the system” by getting elected to boards, submitting shareholder resolutions and writing op-eds. Not a grassroots effort, by any means, but more of a corporate Robin Hood. I’ve never been a street protester, a marcher or a boycotter. I was already out of school and working in the 1960’s and 70’s so I became an “inside” activist.
Then, this past spring I read in the Crimson “Divest Harvard Plans Weeklong Blockade of Massachusetts Hall,” I had to ask myself: why I am not participating? Why not me? And so I went. My wife and I drove to Cambridge and joined the small group gathered to protest Harvard’s investment in fossil fuels.
I’m on record saying that I don’t think divestment is an effective method to end the use of fossil fuels. I still believe that. To me, divestment only allows other investors to buy up those stocks and those investors may be less likely to be involved, responsible owners. An owner can apply their influence within a company to develop alternatives or change behavior. An ex-owner cannot. Consumers can exert influence, too, but up to now we haven’t seen a real commitment on this issue from American consumers. So I stand by my assertion that owners must convince companies to change.
Carnegie, Rockefeller, Gates and Buffett – all believe that their “charitable” instincts are separate from their business responsibilities. It is almost as if at this highest level there exists ethical schizophrenia – firing on the Homestead strikers and violation of the antitrust laws appear suitable to the business world and yet they create problems that the generous foundations may be an important factor in mitigating or even healing. Warren Buffett believes that the standard for corporate behavior should be different from the standard for personal behavior. This pattern has the unfortunate consequence of endorsing an ethically neutral view of corporate behavior with individual responsibility expiated through the creation of charitable foundations. Something is wrong with this story – solution must come from the top. Ethics must govern money-making as well as money-giving. This is why Harvard, in particular, must use its brand to establish a unified ethical standard for corporations which it owns as trustee.
Harvard, with its reputation, gravitas and large endowment is just the type of owner that can make companies listen. And, they could convince other owners to join them. But they don’t. Believe me – I have spent the last forty years trying to get them to do this or even considering doing this. They used to humor me by responding to my letters and even meeting with me. In the past couple of years they’ve even hired someone to set up a responsible investment fund and allowed donors to only give to “good” funds. This still skirts the issue of good stewardship. Or, of any stewardship at all. Ignoring a problem or walking away from a problem doesn’t fix it. The fact is, Harvard refuses to take an active role as an owner of investments.
My effort on this began in the 1970’s when I wrote to then-president-of-Harvard, Derek Bok. We struck up a friendly correspondence in which I was told that education and investments are separate. The reality was that Harvard needed money to provide education. End of story. This continued in my encounters with later presidents. Never was there an acknowledgement that the College was teaching one lesson in the classroom but an entirely separate one in its “real world” investments. So ideals and ethics are taught in the halls but the graduating students took jobs on Wall Street and learned the reality that money and ideals are two separate paths in the “real world.”
Graduating students will be tempted to continue on this path because despite what you learned in school the reality is that money makes the world go around. We must stop this trend. Do not be seduced by money over creating the kind of world you want. Put what you learned in action as owners, managers and trustees. Continue your activism in the working world. Humans created corporations and our economic system. We can put them to work for us. Yes, corporations are designed to create wealth. That doesn’t mean, however, that they must also be destructive. In fact, environmental destruction, sickness and want detract from our wealth. They cost us and they diminish any gains from corporate income.
So, what does this have to do with activism? Well, the campus protest of last spring barely registered and was quickly forgotten. There was no response from the administration. No work went undone and workers in Massachusetts Hall were barely inconvenienced. In today’s mobile workforce, sit-ins and blockades can have little effect. Staff simply unplugs their computer, moves to another space, plugs in and continues working. And there is nothing worse for a protest than to be ignored. The purpose of a protest is to make others take notice; to inconvenience someone enough that they have to respond to you.
It seems to me that we’re still relying on old ways of protesting. Marches, op-eds and the tools of the 1930’s, 1960’s and etc., simply aren’t enough in our modern age. What can we do? This generation of students is tasked with figuring it out. While I have no faith in divestment as a solution, the drive with which this generation of students is pursing it does inspire me. The very efforts toward divest can instigate the discussions that we must have, the scientific research that we must have and the policy changes we must have. Even if students don’t achieve divestment while in school, they can take that knowledge and passion with them into the working world. They are the leaders – not just as activist but as managers, scientists and policymakers. But they must remain activists even as they enter the professional world.
We have taught you ethics and ideals while we took the easy path. Merging ideals and money is what will bring change, what will change our attitude on fossil fuels. Someone has to lead and time is running out. One or even many among you will solve the problem of climate change and fossil fuels. In the past, we have faced huge and dire challenges. Each generation faces crises and each generation channeled ingenuity and energy into finding solutions when all hope seemed lost. I have long suspected that real change comes from “inside” – from inside the system, the corporation and the institution. As you go out into the world you will have the opportunity to make change and to seriously impact the world you inherit. Which path will you choose?