SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
The Shameful Position of a Great University: Why Oxford Must Divest
The prestigious institution loves to ask its alumni for donations, but is not so keen to be criticized over its financial ties to the fossil fuel industry
Mar 12, 2015
I loved my time at Oxford. The privilege of having had three years beneath the dreaming spires left me with a sense of emotional connection that is hard to express. But that feeling has been tested to its limit by the attitude of the current management of Oxford. Let me explain.
In late 2013, I approached the Oxford Alumni Office, asking them who I should approach to encourage divestment from fossil fuels. Here is an extract from that email:
I was up at Oriel (79-82) and have lately found myself becoming quite active in the attempt to stop us from rendering the planet uninhabitable. Sounds completely absurd when you write it down, doesn't it? Climate change is real and we (people, that is) are causing it. I know this because I went to a lecture at the Alumni weekend where two fresh-faced D. Phils from Oxford said so. The point of this email is this: as I recently read that the Cambridge Student Union has voted to get their University to divest themselves of all investment in fossil fuels, I would like to see Oxford do the same. It is entirely inconsistent - not to mention insane - for the University to have investments in carbon-dirty industries when Oxford's own scientists are doing so much work to show that we are destabilising the climate. When I was an undergraduate, Cuppers rowing and Torpids were never cancelled - but now the Isis floods often. It would be the worst of disasters for the University if large areas of Oxford were to be inundated, as the worst predictions for sea level rises suggest.
Even if the potential flooding is a way off, investments in coal, for example, are likely to become stranded assets, eventually being worthless. So, even in the relatively short term, any such investments make little financial sense. Morally, they are entirely indefensible.
The University responded within days. The reply I received was the worst kind of high-handed, self-satisfied fob off. An assistant to the Vice-Chancellor emailed me. Here is part of the reply:
The University of Oxford's core mission is education and research. As I am sure you will appreciate, as a charity the University has a legal obligation to maximise the returns on its investments to support its charitable objects. The University's endowment management company invests in funds that include a range of the world's top companies, which may - but do not necessarily - include oil and gas companies. The University is entirely comfortable with this position.
In other words, get lost.
Oxford has become professional about keeping in touch with its graduates, trotting out the usual phrases about how important we are to the University. What they actually mean is that we are welcome to send donations but what Oxford then does with that money is none of our business. I was so infuriated by how "comfortable" Oxford is about investing in fossil fuels that I pursued the matter.
The claim that the University has a 'legal obligation to maximise the returns on its investments' caused me to plough through both the Companies Act and the Charities Act. Nowhere in either law is there any obligation to maximise the value of investments. The hackneyed phrase used to justify all kinds of corporate irresponsibility, describing the alleged duty 'to maximise shareholder value', putting profit above every other consideration is not law. This mantra of the greedy was coined by two business studies professors at a small college in New York State in the 1970s.
The Charities Act gives the widest possible latitude for charities to set their aims and how they spend money to achieve them. The Companies Act requires company directors to take into account the interests of their employees and the environment. So, I wrote back to Oxford, asking them to explain themselves. I pointed out that Oxford researchers had revealed that fossil fuel companies were actively funding misinformation about climate change and were attacking climate scientists - including those who work at Oxford. I also sent the university a link to their own Smith School's report on the danger of investing in coal as it could become worthless in the very near term.
The University's response: no reply. The stonework of Oxford's architecture is charming. The stonewalling by the University is a disgrace.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
David Evan Giles
David Evan Giles is a storyteller, writer, and filmmaker. He has written for numerous publications and in 2014 was selected to be trained by Al Gore and his team as a speaker on climate change and now delivers the updated version of the talk that was the basis for the Oscar-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.
I loved my time at Oxford. The privilege of having had three years beneath the dreaming spires left me with a sense of emotional connection that is hard to express. But that feeling has been tested to its limit by the attitude of the current management of Oxford. Let me explain.
In late 2013, I approached the Oxford Alumni Office, asking them who I should approach to encourage divestment from fossil fuels. Here is an extract from that email:
I was up at Oriel (79-82) and have lately found myself becoming quite active in the attempt to stop us from rendering the planet uninhabitable. Sounds completely absurd when you write it down, doesn't it? Climate change is real and we (people, that is) are causing it. I know this because I went to a lecture at the Alumni weekend where two fresh-faced D. Phils from Oxford said so. The point of this email is this: as I recently read that the Cambridge Student Union has voted to get their University to divest themselves of all investment in fossil fuels, I would like to see Oxford do the same. It is entirely inconsistent - not to mention insane - for the University to have investments in carbon-dirty industries when Oxford's own scientists are doing so much work to show that we are destabilising the climate. When I was an undergraduate, Cuppers rowing and Torpids were never cancelled - but now the Isis floods often. It would be the worst of disasters for the University if large areas of Oxford were to be inundated, as the worst predictions for sea level rises suggest.
Even if the potential flooding is a way off, investments in coal, for example, are likely to become stranded assets, eventually being worthless. So, even in the relatively short term, any such investments make little financial sense. Morally, they are entirely indefensible.
The University responded within days. The reply I received was the worst kind of high-handed, self-satisfied fob off. An assistant to the Vice-Chancellor emailed me. Here is part of the reply:
The University of Oxford's core mission is education and research. As I am sure you will appreciate, as a charity the University has a legal obligation to maximise the returns on its investments to support its charitable objects. The University's endowment management company invests in funds that include a range of the world's top companies, which may - but do not necessarily - include oil and gas companies. The University is entirely comfortable with this position.
In other words, get lost.
Oxford has become professional about keeping in touch with its graduates, trotting out the usual phrases about how important we are to the University. What they actually mean is that we are welcome to send donations but what Oxford then does with that money is none of our business. I was so infuriated by how "comfortable" Oxford is about investing in fossil fuels that I pursued the matter.
The claim that the University has a 'legal obligation to maximise the returns on its investments' caused me to plough through both the Companies Act and the Charities Act. Nowhere in either law is there any obligation to maximise the value of investments. The hackneyed phrase used to justify all kinds of corporate irresponsibility, describing the alleged duty 'to maximise shareholder value', putting profit above every other consideration is not law. This mantra of the greedy was coined by two business studies professors at a small college in New York State in the 1970s.
The Charities Act gives the widest possible latitude for charities to set their aims and how they spend money to achieve them. The Companies Act requires company directors to take into account the interests of their employees and the environment. So, I wrote back to Oxford, asking them to explain themselves. I pointed out that Oxford researchers had revealed that fossil fuel companies were actively funding misinformation about climate change and were attacking climate scientists - including those who work at Oxford. I also sent the university a link to their own Smith School's report on the danger of investing in coal as it could become worthless in the very near term.
The University's response: no reply. The stonework of Oxford's architecture is charming. The stonewalling by the University is a disgrace.
David Evan Giles
David Evan Giles is a storyteller, writer, and filmmaker. He has written for numerous publications and in 2014 was selected to be trained by Al Gore and his team as a speaker on climate change and now delivers the updated version of the talk that was the basis for the Oscar-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.
I loved my time at Oxford. The privilege of having had three years beneath the dreaming spires left me with a sense of emotional connection that is hard to express. But that feeling has been tested to its limit by the attitude of the current management of Oxford. Let me explain.
In late 2013, I approached the Oxford Alumni Office, asking them who I should approach to encourage divestment from fossil fuels. Here is an extract from that email:
I was up at Oriel (79-82) and have lately found myself becoming quite active in the attempt to stop us from rendering the planet uninhabitable. Sounds completely absurd when you write it down, doesn't it? Climate change is real and we (people, that is) are causing it. I know this because I went to a lecture at the Alumni weekend where two fresh-faced D. Phils from Oxford said so. The point of this email is this: as I recently read that the Cambridge Student Union has voted to get their University to divest themselves of all investment in fossil fuels, I would like to see Oxford do the same. It is entirely inconsistent - not to mention insane - for the University to have investments in carbon-dirty industries when Oxford's own scientists are doing so much work to show that we are destabilising the climate. When I was an undergraduate, Cuppers rowing and Torpids were never cancelled - but now the Isis floods often. It would be the worst of disasters for the University if large areas of Oxford were to be inundated, as the worst predictions for sea level rises suggest.
Even if the potential flooding is a way off, investments in coal, for example, are likely to become stranded assets, eventually being worthless. So, even in the relatively short term, any such investments make little financial sense. Morally, they are entirely indefensible.
The University responded within days. The reply I received was the worst kind of high-handed, self-satisfied fob off. An assistant to the Vice-Chancellor emailed me. Here is part of the reply:
The University of Oxford's core mission is education and research. As I am sure you will appreciate, as a charity the University has a legal obligation to maximise the returns on its investments to support its charitable objects. The University's endowment management company invests in funds that include a range of the world's top companies, which may - but do not necessarily - include oil and gas companies. The University is entirely comfortable with this position.
In other words, get lost.
Oxford has become professional about keeping in touch with its graduates, trotting out the usual phrases about how important we are to the University. What they actually mean is that we are welcome to send donations but what Oxford then does with that money is none of our business. I was so infuriated by how "comfortable" Oxford is about investing in fossil fuels that I pursued the matter.
The claim that the University has a 'legal obligation to maximise the returns on its investments' caused me to plough through both the Companies Act and the Charities Act. Nowhere in either law is there any obligation to maximise the value of investments. The hackneyed phrase used to justify all kinds of corporate irresponsibility, describing the alleged duty 'to maximise shareholder value', putting profit above every other consideration is not law. This mantra of the greedy was coined by two business studies professors at a small college in New York State in the 1970s.
The Charities Act gives the widest possible latitude for charities to set their aims and how they spend money to achieve them. The Companies Act requires company directors to take into account the interests of their employees and the environment. So, I wrote back to Oxford, asking them to explain themselves. I pointed out that Oxford researchers had revealed that fossil fuel companies were actively funding misinformation about climate change and were attacking climate scientists - including those who work at Oxford. I also sent the university a link to their own Smith School's report on the danger of investing in coal as it could become worthless in the very near term.
The University's response: no reply. The stonework of Oxford's architecture is charming. The stonewalling by the University is a disgrace.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.