{shortcode-3c3cb3f5ff443fe7e1be337bc36fad46ebb6e39c}

Harvard is at a crossroads of institutional identity.

From an ongoing congressional investigation, to publically halted financial contributions, and to the end of the shortest presidential tenure in history, Harvard has perpetually found itself at the center of the national news cycle.

Last month, The Crimson reported that Harvard would consider a policy of “institutional neutrality.” In the name of fostering academic freedom across different viewpoints, such a practice would bar Harvard from making publically political statements as an institution.

Famously, the University of Chicago has practiced institutional neutrality since 1967. While its implementation for the sake of promoting academic freedom is understandable, UChicago has used institutional neutrality as an escape from engaging with well-backed calls from divestment on multiple occasions.

When several other peer institutions — including Harvard, albeit in a limited form — announced divestment from South African apartheid in the 1980s, the University of Chicago refused to divest their holdings, citing the decision as too political. More recently, they have repeatedly resisted calls for fossil fuel divestment under the same reasoning. Harvard must not follow in UChicago’s footsteps.

These last months have undoubtedly catalyzed the call for neutrality on our campus, but Harvard — and student activist criticism — is no stranger to the political spotlight. Most recently, the 2010s witnessed a robust student movement at Harvard favoring fossil fuel divestment.

The peak of 2010s divestment activism at Harvard came in 2019, when hundreds of student activists stormed the field at the annual Harvard-Yale football game to pressure both universities to divest from fossil fuels and Puerto Rican debt.

A few years later, Harvard acquiesced, announcing in 2021 that they would divest from fossil fuels.

But there’s no doubt that claims of the need for “institutional neutrality” from biased sources could have challenged this important shift in Harvard’s investments.

If Harvard chooses to adopt a long-term policy of institutional neutrality, which seems increasingly likely, it can not be used as an excuse to neglect intentionality and vision in its investments.

In fact, in plenty of scenarios, divestment can be good for neutrality. Moving money away from industries and companies with histories of purposefully spreading disinformation for their financial benefit would not be a political statement — it would be one aligned with Harvard’s iconic motto of “veritas,” or truth.

Exxon Mobil is a great example. In the 1970s they denied claims regarding the problems of global warming despite the contradictory reports they received from their company scientists.

More recently, despite company knowledge of the health and economic benefits of the clean energy transition, Exxon has been accused of using their monetary influence to hinder legislation that adequately addresses the climate crisis (a charge they have denied). With even meager concern for values, why would Harvard want to invest?

Divesting from industries and companies with histories of purposefully spreading disinformation for their financial benefit is not a political statement; it is, in fact, aligned with Harvard’s iconic motto of “veritas” — truth.

Further, divestment, when appropriate, falls within the boundaries of “neutrality,” and promotes it, severing Harvard from controversial political ties.

Remember, fossil fuel divestment is not as controversial as one may think. Despite the polarization of Congress on the issue of climate, Americans on both sides of the political aisle recognize the benefits of moving away from fossil fuel reliance.

Harvard has not shied away from divesting from objectionable industries in the past. Historically, the industries from which Harvard has notably divested their endowment — Big Tobacco and the fossil fuel industry — have abused their influence to fund studies that produced results favoring their industries. (Harvard has yet to disavow research funding from fossil fuel companies, but individual Harvard schools have disavowed research funding from Big Tobacco.)

In fact, 67 percent of American voters support universities not taking direct research investments from fossil fuel industries for the sake of producing trustworthy research.

It would be a shame to let neutrality hamper a critical approach to Harvard’s divestment under a presumption of “politics” when remaining invested is an equally political position.

If Harvard chooses neutrality, its leaders should pursue a policy that allows for divestment and changing decisions on where Harvard’s money flows.

Jasmine N. Wynn ’27, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Thayer Hall and is an organizer with Fossil Fuel Divest Harvard.