Recent letters, commentaries and an editorial in this paper have alluded to the fact that discussion about divestment of University of Massachusetts and state funds from fossil fuel companies is a merely symbolic gesture.
If the goal of groups seeking divestiture is simply to make symbolic gestures, this may be sufficient. However, if their goal is have some impact on the use of fossil fuels, this effort may be counter-production.
Perhaps an analogy would make this clear. If I sell my house I am not in the position to tell the current owners that they should stop wasting electricity or stop using antibacterial soap. However, if I still own the house and rent a room I am able to influence the behaviors of my tenants.
If UMass were to continue its ownership in fossil fuel firms we, it can take activist positions with respect to the firms. For instance, as an investor we could push for a requirement that blow-out protectors be placed on every oil-well.
There are other positions student protesters could take that would have an even greater impact. Why not lobby so that returns from the fossil fuel investments be used to cover solar panels for university buildings? Or take positons to discourage fossil fuel use by employees, staff and students.
For example, the Amherst campus charges for parking permits based on the owner’s salary. So even though I ride my bike to campus over 100 days a year, I may pay more for parking than the person who drives a huge SUV 200 days a year. Why not charge for parking based on the number of days driven? Or how about seeking a ban on all Volkswagens on campus? Or eliminating all free bus service and parking so people have to walk or to ride bikes to campus?
It is great to see students mobilizing to make changes, however they need to consider whether their actions are symbolic, and related to their goals, or actually counter-productive.
Graham Gal
Amherst