Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    Hands-On Career Preparation
    An AI-Driven Work Force
    Alternative Pathways
Sign In
Commentary

Executive Deception: Four Fallacies About Divestment, and One Big Mistake

By Kathleen Dean Moore October 18, 2015
Executive Deception: Four Fallacies  About Divestment, and One Big Mistake 1
Dave Cutler for The Chronicle

It pains this old logic professor to read university officials’ arguments against divesting their institutions of investments in fossil fuels, not because their refusal to divest is wrong-headed, although I believe it is, but because their logic is so awful.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

Executive Deception: Four Fallacies  About Divestment, and One Big Mistake 1
Dave Cutler for The Chronicle

It pains this old logic professor to read university officials’ arguments against divesting their institutions of investments in fossil fuels, not because their refusal to divest is wrong-headed, although I believe it is, but because their logic is so awful.

A sample of Ivy League universities’ antidivestment statements offers a primer in the fallacies that students are warned against in Logic 101. Here are four:

The ad hominem argument: “I find a troubling inconsistency in the notion that, as an investor, we should boycott [the oil-and-gas industry, while we] are extensively relying on those companies’ products and services,” writes Drew Faust, president of Harvard University.

The assumption is that those who rely on fossil fuels do not have the moral authority to take a stand against them. This is an ad hominem (to the man) attack, which turns the focus from the argument itself to the person or institution making the argument. The attack might be fair if the university had freely chosen fossil fuels from an array of options. It did not. Over generations, fossil fuels have been built into the structure of our lives, our buildings, our cities. Big Oil works hard to perpetuate that dependency and to radically constrict choices, as it lobbies against renewable energies, influences the election of officials who will vote against alternative transportation, hires hacks to confuse the public about the scientific consensus on climate change, making sure that colleges (and all the rest of us) are forced to use fossil fuels. It’s the ultimate triumph of the industry that even as it is externalizing its environmental costs, it is also externalizing its shame. And university officials making this argument haplessly cooperate to disempower their own moral voices and those of their students.

The straw argument: “Brown’s holdings are much too small for divestiture to reduce corporate profits,” writes Christina Paxson, president of Brown University.

Of course Brown’s divestment, or anyone else’s, will not cripple the fossil-fuel industry. The author and divestment leader Bill McKibben publicly affirms that it will not. Divestment isn’t designed to destroy. It is designed to save, and what is imperiled here is the integrity of the university. A university has an overriding responsibility to advance the well-being of its students, which means that it is flat wrong to profit from industries that will devastate their future.

The Ivy League response is a classic straw argument, a cynical or careless misconstruing of the divestment argument. Instead of addressing the real issue of moral integrity, the president substitutes a scarecrow so flimsy that it might be made of straw. Easy enough to knock down the bogus argument, but the serious one remains.

The false dichotomy: “Yale will have its greatest impact in meeting the climate challenges through its core mission: research, scholarship, and education,” claims the Yale Corporation Committee on Investor Responsibility.

Maybe so. But that doesn’t mean that Yale should not study, educate, and at the same time divest from fossil fuels. Divest or educate? This is not a forced choice between alternatives. In fact, divestment may be a university’s greatest opportunity for moral education, for instruction in the foundational moral imperative to let your values guide your decisions.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Climate change is a grave threat to human welfare,” the committee goes on to say. If so, then Yale should throw everything it’s got at the threat. Research? Yes. Scholarship? Yes. Education? Beyond a doubt. Divestment? Absolutely, and anything else it can pull out of the hat. Addressing climate change is going to require the greatest exercise of the moral and technological imagination the world has ever seen. The future is no place for slackers.

The hasty generalization. “Logic and experience indicate that barring investments in [fossil fuels] would — especially for a large endowment reliant on sophisticated investment techniques, pooled funds, and broad diversification — come at a substantial economic cost.” Harvard again.

It’s sometimes logical to make predictions about the future on the basis of past experience, but only if you can assume that the future will resemble the past. When the future threatens to be staggeringly different from the past, reliance on experience is a hasty, often expensive mistake in reasoning.

Never before has life on the planet been so deeply threatened by a single energy technology — burning fossil fuels. And never before have there been so many alternative ways to generate energy. Never have the costs of alternatives fallen so rapidly.

ADVERTISEMENT

It’s a new world. Whether because of new technologies, new regulations, a global crisis of conscience, a global economy utterly devastated by climate change, or who knows what, the world will divest itself of the fossil-fuel economy, and probably sooner rather than later. The investors who quickly respond to a changing world have the best chance to prosper; the laggards will be left holding the bag.

And so we come to the big mistake: “The [university] endowment is a resource, not an instrument to impel social or political change.” Harvard.

Oh, yes it is. By profiting from Big Oil, the university endowment casts a very public vote for short-term, short-sighted profit and against the victims of that business plan — future generations, plants and animals, the world’s poor and displaced — and the university’s own students. Shame.

A version of this article appeared in the October 23, 2015, issue.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Opinion
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

More News

Photo-based illustration of scissors cutting through a flat black and white university building and a landscape bearing the image of a $100 bill.
Budget Troubles
‘Every Revenue Source Is at Risk’: Under Trump, Research Universities Are Cutting Back
Photo-based illustration of the Capitol building dome topping a jar of money.
Budget Bill
Republicans’ Plan to Tax Higher Ed and Slash Funding Advances in Congress
Allison Pingree, a Cambridge, Mass. resident, joined hundreds at an April 12 rally urging Harvard to resist President Trump's influence on the institution.
International
Trump Administration Revokes Harvard’s Ability to Enroll International Students
Photo-based illustration of an open book with binary code instead of narrative paragraphs
Culture Shift
The Reading Struggle Meets AI

From The Review

Illustration of a Gold Seal sticker embossed with President Trump's face
The Review | Essay
What Trump’s Accreditation Moves Get Right
By Samuel Negus
Illustration of a torn cold seal sticker embossed with President Trump's face
The Review | Essay
The Weaponization of Accreditation
By Greg D. Pillar, Laurie Shanderson
Protestors gather outside the Pro-Palestinian encampment on the campus of UCLA in Los Angeles on Wednesday, May 1, 2024.
The Review | Conversation
Are Colleges Rife With Antisemitism? If So, What Should Be Done?
By Evan Goldstein, Len Gutkin

Upcoming Events

Ascendium_06-10-25_Plain.png
Views on College and Alternative Pathways
Coursera_06-17-25_Plain.png
AI and Microcredentials
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin