{shortcode-1a3a8f8b3f351ce9b8df2bb8dc0bff9c73f75060}

Among Harvard’s many promises to confront the climate crisis, the one most directly relevant to us as students is its commitment to lead through teaching.

My previous column argued that research, another pillar of the University’s dreams for climate leadership, must extricate itself from fossil fuel influence. The same is true of Harvard’s teaching.

An internal Harvard report has urged the University to bring in more talent for climate-based education. And with its wealth and prestige, Harvard is well positioned to bring in top experts from around the world to train students to become world leaders on these questions.

Unfortunately, players in the oil industry see higher education as ground for infiltration. Executives at the oil giant BP have pointed to university relationships as key sites for strategic maneuvering intended to bolster their credibility and social influence. And Harvard has done little to protect itself from that infiltration.

Multiple professors — including some who are deeply involved in Harvard’s climate ecosystem — have business ties to the fossil fuel industry. This does a massive disservice to the climate education that these professors can impart — and, by extension, a massive disservice to us students.

A particularly striking case of this made headlines last spring: the work of Harvard Law School professor and founder of the Law School’s Environmental and Energy Law Program Jody L. Freeman. Freeman came under intense scrutiny last spring due to her position on the board of the oil giant ConocoPhillips, where she made approximately $350,000 annually using her experience “shaping federal environmental and energy policy” to advise the company on its practices, according to her job description.

While Freeman claimed she was helping the energy company with its energy transition, her presence didn’t seem to be doing much good. At the peak of scrutiny toward Freeman, ConocoPhillips had recently received approval for its new massive oil drilling project, the Willow project. This proposed drilling has been called a “carbon bomb” whose emissions could dwarf all the gains made from renewable projects on public land and waters by 2030.

Freeman also has a history of defending oil and gas companies in the media as becoming more ethical. And as came to light last spring, she has used her Harvard credentials to lobby the federal government on behalf of ConocoPhillips.

She may very well have been trying to advance environmental reforms at ConocoPhillips. But what was she teaching her students by taking hundreds of thousands of dollars a year from a company actively destroying the planet, and advocating for that company in emails and in the press? How could she retain her credibility as an educator amidst this hypocrisy and conflict of interest?

At best, Freeman’s collaboration with ConocoPhillips might lead her students to believe the fossil fuel industry’s misleading advertising that it is on the forefront of the energy transition. At worst, they might learn that the industry directly responsible for the climate crisis shouldn’t be actively opposed, because supporting it can make them money.

Freeman stepped down this August from her role on ConocoPhillips following the scrutiny she received last spring, but this was an independent decision. Harvard had no policies preventing her from splitting time between environmental teaching and oil lobbying.

Freeman’s individual decision also hasn’t stopped other Harvard affiliates from continuing their conflicts of interest. For example, Jane A. Nelson, a lecturer in public policy at the Kennedy School, currently works for ExxonMobil in an advisory role focused on sustainability.

The fossil fuel industry relies on institutions like Harvard for credibility and social license. If Harvard wants to fight against climate change through teaching, it can’t blindly grant that credibility. Our University must be willing to tell its students hard, unpleasant truths about the real and tangible harm the fossil fuel industry has done and continues to do, without undermining the message by maintaining close relationships with the industry.

Harvard already has policies in place about the kinds of work faculty can engage in outside the classroom. Faculty are not, for example, permitted to teach at another school without the express permission of the Harvard Corporation following recommendation from their dean.

As Harvard continues to work to improve its climate education offerings in light of the climate crisis, it could easily establish policies that would compel professors to choose between their dedication to climate education and their work for fossil fuel companies. These policies would protect the credibility of Harvard, its professors, and its climate curriculum.

Ultimately, Harvard needs top environmental talent in its classrooms as it works to train the next generation of climate leaders. The oil industry cannot be allowed to divert that talent for its own gain, taking energy away from the education that is the school’s central mission.

That’s why Harvard needs to take big oil out of the classroom for good.

Phoebe G. Barr ’24 is a History and Literature concentrator in Lowell House and an organizer with Fossil Fuel Divest Harvard. Her column, “Harvard's Role Amid Climate Chaos,” appears bi-weekly on Thursdays.

{shortcode-da55eea1799bdba989b55161aac0209225b349b7}