Offline: The thermodynamics of morality

Abstract

From the Rockefeller family to the World Council of Churches, from Mary Robinson to Desmond Tutu, fossil fuel divestment is the fastest growing social movement of our times. The university is the surprising flashpoint for its realisation. Universities occupy an unusually important place in our societies. They are creators of knowledge about the effects of fossil fuels on our communities. But they can also be moral leaders in civic and political affairs. In 2014, the University of Glasgow became the first university in Europe to divest its stake in fossil fuels, after a 12-month campaign by 1300 students and faculty. The School of Oriental and African Studies in London has put a temporary freeze on its investments. Some universities have stumbled. Oxford has deferred its decision. Last month, University College London (UCL) became the latest higher education institution to debate its options. Convened by Anthony Costello, who led The Lancet's 2009 Commission on Managing the Health Effects of Climate Change, the motion was to the point: “Should UCL divest from fossil fuels and sell its £21 million invested in the industry?” Chris Rapley, Professor of Climate Science and a former Director of the UK's Science Museum, argued for divestment. It is the prudent thing to do and the university should make a gesture towards what is right. Jane Holder, Professor of Environmental Law, concluded that if the university did not divest, there would be severe consequences for the legitimacy of the environmental teaching and research undertaken by the university. Anthony Finkelstein, Dean of Engineering Sciences, disagreed. Fossil fuels, he said, will be part of our future. The “moral stridency” of the divestment campaign, Finkelstein suggested, was “deeply distasteful”. He noted an “anti-capitalist tinge” to the debate. If you really wanted to make a difference, study thermodynamics instead. Hugh Montgomery, Director of the UCL Institute for Human Health and Performance, equated current fossil fuel use with five Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs exploding every second. The case for divestment was not a “rabid, shouty, anti-capitalist agenda”. It was about using divestment as a tool to reshape the market—reducing demand for fossil fuels to induce transformative change in the industry. Jane Rendell, Professor of Architecture and Art, argued that investing in fossil fuels was inconsistent with the university's research strategy—the judicious application of knowledge for the sustainability of humanity. The disconnect between scientific evidence and the university's position was undermining UCL's reputation for integrity. Finally, Alan Penn, Dean of the Bartlett Faculty of the Built Environment, made a counterproposal. Don't divest. Instead, invest—until you have a controlling stake in the industry you dislike. The audience overwhelmingly favoured divestment. Of those who initially voted “don't know”, most switched to support divestment by the close of the evening. But the university is, I am told, not minded to divest. Is impasse all one can expect? Columbia University economist Jeff Sachs recently asked, “What is a moral university in the 21st century?” He argued that a university is, before anything else, a moral community. Its staff and students have the perpetual task of building that moral community. Too often, universities make decisions in the absence of any moral consideration. The default operating principle of most American universities is libertarian. Anything goes, in the name of freedom. But universities, Sachs argued, have “a special position of morality and responsibility vis-à-vis the rest of society”. By morality, Sachs means “guiding principles”. Applying these principles is not easy. It takes education and experience. The libertarian view is that a university cannot speak with one voice for all of its individual members. No, says Sachs. The university cannot simply be the sum of its parts. It has to have “a larger moral purpose”. That purpose can only be found within the wider community we inhabit. The ethical position a university takes must align with the needs of that community. “We should strive to revive moral discourse as a university community.” But not only this. The university must also engage with wider global—and moral—challenges. UCL has taken one step towards strengthening its moral discourse. But its failure, and the failure of many other universities, to live by a higher moral purpose reveals the extent of the disease afflicting our universities today.