Despite their alleged focus on sustainability, there seems to be an awful lot of fossil fuel and ‘big oil’ money creeping into the university’s ‘green’ programs† The main example they give is Stanford’s new Doerr School of Sustainability, but it’s far from the only place where these problematic conflicts of interest crop up in academia.
Their main example at Stanford is particularly interesting considering two things. The first is that the school – which in particular has NOT joined other universities in fossil fuel divestiture – has been under a lot of pressure to withhold money from fossil fuel companies. While the money can come legally with no strings attached, it’s hard to bite the hand that feeds, so activists, student groups and others have told Stanford not to take money from oil companies. But on day one, the dean of the new school announced that they will accept that money despite the pressure, which includes a letter signed by hundreds of Stanford alumni, researchers and others.
The other thing that makes this so interesting is how much money the school has already received from a more neutral source. John and Ann Doerr gave the university $1.1 billion dollars, the second largest private gift ever to academia. It is the largest ever made dedicated to climate action and research. But apparently that’s not enough money for a sustainability school, it seems.
Other schools have had similar problems. Harvard and George Washington University are both embroiled in controversy over the money coming in from fossil fuel companies to sustainability schools, and research is underway to determine how much of them came in, in what forms, and how it affects academic fairness. .
As for Stanford, the report takes a deep dive into the other conflicts of interest that both Stanford and the dean of the new sustainability school have with the fossil fuel industry. As before, the school is refusing to divest from fossil fuels for fear that their donations would dry up. They also have many other funding and research-related ties that prevent the school from taking a completely objective view of climate change and the activities of oil companies, and it seems very likely that the university just serves as a sustainability stamp for oil companies to make themselves appear more sustainable and environmentally friendly than they actually are†
The obvious problem here is that oil companies still have a lot of money and power, and they use that money and that power to secure their future money and power. When they can get into sustainability schools and have some influence on research priorities, they can prolong the survival of their business at the expense of the mission these schools are supposed to undertake.
It makes sense to stop these schools from adopting fossil fuels, but if that’s not going to happen, we probably need to make sure that the public becomes aware that academia is not as trustworthy as they would like us to think when it comes to these issues† In the end, the truth prevails, even if it costs society dearly at first. Once the truth becomes overwhelmingly clear, it’s hard not to seem like you’re completely untrustworthy if you’re clearly downplaying or hiding the truth.
So ultimately it’s Stanford’s reputation that will be damaged here if they don’t get their house in order.
Featured image: Stanford University oval. Image by King of Hearts, CC-BY-SA 3.0
Do you appreciate the originality of CleanTechnica and the coverage of cleantech? Consider becoming one CleanTechnica member, supporter, technician or ambassador — or a patron on Patreon†
