19 minute read
Editorial
Next Article
The Crimson Edi orial board
Faculty Want Divestment, Too — What About Administrators?
Last week, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences chose to break from the administration’s longstanding po sition to vote overwhelmingly in favor of divestment from fossil fuels. Their pro posal — approved by a whopping 179-20 margin — advises the Harvard Corpo ration to divest the University’s endowment from companies that “explore for or develop further reserves of fossil fu els.” It will now be brought to the Harvard Corporation for consideration. The vote marks the culmination of a fourmonth-long debate among faculty over the proper role of the University in com bating climate change.
Regardless of what the Harvard Cor poration chooses to do with this proposal, the faculty’s vote is a positive development. We reiterate our stance that divestment from fossil fuels is a moral imperative and reject the notion that our education must be funded through prac tices that hasten environmental calamity.
It is illogical for the University to con tinue to invest in a future that it is actively working to eliminate. As such, it’s encouraging to see the faculty considering fossil fuel divestment so rigorously, and then electing decisively to champion it. We look forward to seeing their pro posal presented to the Harvard Corporation. However, we do so warily. The documented ties Harvard Corporation members have to the fossil fuel indus try cause us to question how much their opinion will be swayed by this proposal. Regardless, we urge the Harvard Corpo ration to seriously consider this proposal and divest from fossil fuels, especially since this vote has followed years of stu dent-led activism that they have continuously ignored and discounted.
It bears note that faculty are discuss ing this issue in significant part due to the rigorous student activism organiza tions such as Divest Harvard and others have engaged in over the past few years. If this proposal is not taken into serious consideration, not only will it be deeply disappointing, but it will also be a glar
If Harvard’s administration has faith in its faculty, then the fact that they voted 179-20 in favor of divestment should mean something.
ing sign to faculty and students alike that Harvard truly does not care about what they think.
If Harvard’s administration has faith in its faculty, then the fact that they vot ed 179-20 in favor of divestment should mean something.
In debates leading up to this vote, fac ulty members supporting divestment argued that Harvard, as one of the top universities in the nation, needs to be at the forefront of an international divest ment movement. And while it inspires hope to see faculty members fighting for the change that its students have been wanting to see for a long time, the idea that Harvard is falling behind and that we must be a “leader” in this divestment movement should not be one of the pri mary arguments for divestment from fossil fuels.
Not only is it way too late for Har vard to be a leader in this movement (many universities are already leading this charge), but this type of language and reasoning discounts the struggles of those immediately and disproportion ately affected by climate change, particularly already marginalized communities.
When Harvard centers conversations on divestment around the optics of how divestment would make Harvard look, it does a disservice to these people.
Finally, we urge the faculty to serious ly consider and discuss other divestment movements, including divestment from the prison industry, Puerto Rican debt, indigenous landholdings, occupation of Palestine, and any others that are being led by students on this campus.
The faculty have shown themselves capable of serious deliberation, and the fate of these other movements stands to benefit from such considered treatment.
This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journal ism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar top ics.
Submit an Op-Ed Today!
The Crimson @thecrimson
The Double-Edged Sword of Social Justice Op-ed
There are two types of social justice. The first one is real, palpable, peaceful change instituted for the benefit of marginalized groups and causes. Therein we find #MeToo, Black Lives Matter, BGLTQ rights, Kaepernick kneeling for the anthem to protest police brutality, Greta Thunberg raising cli mate change awareness, and so on. The other type is nefarious.
It is self-serving and, ironically, un just. It keeps us from transcending the very barriers that proponents of social justice aspire to overcome. And it mani fests in many forms.
It’s when people bully and ostracize others under the guise of protecting mi nority groups. It’s when people actively look for ways to misconstrue a person’s words or actions, demean them, gal vanize the masses, and hence promote their own interests (attention, retweets, etc.).
It’s when people create a rhetori cal peanut gallery of frivolous dialogue while clandestine, truly harmful policies pass with little scrutiny. It’s one of mob mentality. Here at Harvard, we see this latter form as much as the former. And if we are committed to equal rights, we need to change that.
A prime example is last year’s deci sion not to renew Ronald S. Sullivan, Jr. as a faculty dean. Students actively ral lied, demonized him, and demanded that Harvard fire him. Why? All Sullivan did was get hired to defend someone in a court of law.
This country is founded upon certain prescribed freedoms — one is the right to a lawyer, as well as a fair trial. Nothing like this happened when Harvard Law School’s Professor Emeritus Alan M. Dershowitz represented O.J. Simpson, accused of double murder, in his trial, nor when he was recently hired to repre sent Donald Trump in his impeachment. Yet when Sullivan represented Harvey Weinstein, social justice advocates pro mulgated a double standard, going mad By Luke t. atkins
over his decision.
Moreover, John Adams himself, a chief intellectual behind the founding of the United States, set a bold precedent in representing British troops after the Boston Massacre. It was an enlightened one, as it ensured the protection of indi viduals in all cases — publicly perceived to be guilty or not. We can’t suddenly abandon these ideals of benevolence and equal rights; it is contrary to the intent of social justice.
A more widespread form of fake so cial justice — on- and off-campus — is the culture of political correctness. PC culture is something that must be done away with.
It hinders free speech, conjures con troversy out of things that shouldn’t be controversial (e.g., most comedy), and stifles people from challenging one an
A more widespread form of fake social justice — on- and off-campus — is the culture of political correctness. PC culture is something that must be done away with.
other when they subject themselves to perpetual “safe spaces.”
Holocaust deniers are, even as absurd as their beliefs prove, protected with free speech and a right to assemble. But when a comedian makes a petty joke, people often look to take offense to it so they can try to “cancel” that comedian’s career.
A recent example of cancel culture in the Harvard area is when conserva tive commentator and writer Ben Shapiro gave a speech at Boston University. Protestors met this with vengeance; they tried to “cancel” it, just because they dis agreed with him. I’m no fan of Shapiro, but I can’t stop him simply because he “offends” me.
Legally, I can protest his free speech, but that doesn’t mean I should; he spreads his message peacefully, with os tensibly benevolent intentions.
Granted, if someone is making threats or causing harm, it totally makes sense why one would want to address such a problem to protect powerless or other wise marginalized people. But, in general, we can’t simply bully people with whom we disagree; sometimes, they just haven’t been properly exposed to enough culture and education to rid themselves of stereotypes. Attacking people won’t change their minds. What can change people is empathy, shared experience, and demonstration that we’re more alike than we think.
When someone is being racist, sexist, homophobic, or xenophobic, don’t meet it with hate. That’s just reciprocal prej udice.
Meet them with an open heart; show why you disagree with their views in a constructive way. Show that we’re all hu man — with the same fears, joys, frustrations, tastes, and hobbies. We even have the same memes. It may not work, but you’ll serve society more than you would by meeting ignorance with organized hate or ostracization.
If you hear students’ classroom dis cussions here at Harvard, see what’s on social media, or notice campus rhetoric, you will see that there is a degree of intol erance for conservatives, Christians, Republicans, and others of minority political and religious stances.
This is antithetical to liberalism and multiculturalism, which are all-inclu sive concepts. I dream of a world wherein everyone has the same platforms and privileges to express themselves and live in a truly egalitarian world.
To quote Evelyn B. Hall’s summary of Voltaire: “I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it.”
So don’t be judgmental, quick to con clusions, or hateful. Be respectful, empathetic, open to interpretation, and constructive.
olumn
The New Old Solution to Poverty
Matthew B. Gilbert A time for new ideas
The United States is stuck. Mainstream political discourse in this country seems less and less likely to have answers for the problems facing us today. In many cases, it feels incapable of even identifying these problems. There is a palpable feeling that the status quo cannot hold for much longer. In an era of unprec edented change, it is time for new ideas. I want to offer a few of them. But to do that, we need to go back in time.
As the U.S. established itself in the late 1700s, founding father Thomas Paine, who authored the pamphlet “Common Sense” that helped spur the colonies to revolution, was advocating another
Paine argued that all citizens should receive a payment at age 21 and a pension every year starting at age 50 as recompense for the loss of common ownership of the Earth.
revolutionary idea in “Agrarian Justice.” Paine argued that all citizens should receive a payment at age 21 and a pension every year starting at age 50 as recompense for the loss of common owner ship of the Earth. Centuries later, Martin Luther King Jr. advocated for a guaranteed minimum in come, a payment to all people linked to the median American income, in order to end poverty and ensure dignity for all Americans.
In the late 1960s early 70s, a bill called the Fam ily Assistance Plan, which would have provided poor families with a basic income (over $10,000 in present-day money to a family of four), was en dorsed by over 1,000 economists and passed the U.S. House of Representatives twice before fail ing in the Senate.
What all these plans have in common is the recognition that the most effective tool to recti fy economic injustice is money. If we are going to seek the abolition of poverty in this century, we must understand that education, jobs, and other programs can only do so much. To quote author Rutger Bregman, “Poverty is not a lack of char acter. Poverty is a lack of cash.” The most effective, simple, and direct way to address poverty is to give people money. Sadly, this kind of thinking has been absent from the mainstream for the past half-century.
That brings us to the present day. Former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang brought this idea back into the spotlight by mak ing a universal basic income, which he called the Freedom Dividend, the centerpiece of his cam paign. But Yang is not the only proponent of UBI out there. The movement behind basic income is bigger than any one person, and after all these years, decades, and even centuries, this move ment may finally be nearing the mountaintop. I invite you to join us.
First, we should understand what UBI is. Let’s go letter by letter. The I is for Income: a UBI is a monetary payment. The U is for Universal — that means it goes to everyone; rich or poor, young or old; black or white, it doesn’t matter — every le gal adult gets the exact same payment. Next is B, for Basic: it should be enough to cover basic needs, such as food, water, and shelter. Various basic in come advocates across the political spectrum have proposed their own particular versions, but those three conditions are generally agreed upon (although MLK was advocating for more than just a basic income — but that’s worth discussing at a later time).
Is UBI the solution to poverty, or is it unwork able and a pipe dream? There’s nothing wrong with being skeptical of new ideas. I became con vinced of the importance of UBI after discovering a 1970s experiment in Canada. A program called
In an era of record-setting economic growth but also rampant inequality we are long overdue for some policies that would make people’s lives better.
Mincome gave a basic income to a few thousand Canadians in Manitoba from 1974 to 1979 before funding was cut. The data was ignored for de cades before finally being unearthed and then published in 2011. The results are astonishing. Most recipients were lifted out of poverty.
Hospitalizations, injuries, and rates of teen pregnancy decreased while high school gradu ation rates improved and there was a dramatic drop in mental health issues. The money made people’s lives better. In an era of record-setting economic growth but also rampant inequality we are long overdue for some policies that would make people’s lives better.
Few people in the media, and maybe not even Yang himself, fully understood how radical of an idea he was proposing. UBI fundamentally alters our relationship with work and survival. It en sures a basic right to exist for all Americans. It frees ordinary people from the need to take any and every job offered just to get by. It gives every one the chance to worry a little less and to take ownership of their own lives. UBI is not about the money; the money is a means to an end.
It’s time for new ideas. It’s time for universal basic income.
athlete From Page 1 Student Athletes Work to Confront Mental Health
“We’re not the experts. We are here to be, hopefully, someone who can point them in the right direction or simply be there to listen,” he said. “Someone dif ferent than a coach or authority figure who can listen and poten tially help direct or be there for a friend or teammate.”
CAMHS chief Barbara Lew is wrote in an email that student-athletes can play a particularly effective role in facilitating their teammates’ use of mental health resources.
“The SAWL program is not a counseling service, but rath er a complement to pre-existing CAMHS programming avail able to our student athletes,” she wrote. “We realize that stu dents may prefer to reach out to a peer rather than an adult, and we want to support innovative opportunities that make it eas ier for students to engage with their peers to help them get the resources and support that they need.”
Women’s basketball head coach Kathy Delaney-Smith ac knowledged that athletes may be reluctant to voice their con cerns to their coaches. She said she supports efforts to improve the mental health of athletes.
“There’s a great need for helping student-athletes navi gate emotional problems, mental challenges,” Delaney-Smith said. “So in that regard, I’m thrilled that there’s an initiative to try something.”
‘Like Any Other Muscle in Yo ur B dy’ To excel at their sports, athletes work hard at maintaining peak physical shape. Several SAWLs agreed that physical health is critical to athletic per formance, but they noted that mental health also plays a vital role in their success.
Field hockey SAWL Eliz abeth A. Denehy ’22 said she felt struggled adjusting to Har vard during her first year, grappling with feelings of inadequacy. Though she was physically healthy, she said she felt as though she was “constantly try ing to tread water.” Once Denehy confided in her teammates, she said she finally felt accepted. “Once I talked about my feel ings with people on my team, everyone was like ‘yeah, we feel the same way.’ Once I was open about it, I realized how much better life was and I was,” Dene hy said. “So I just want to help others on my team or people in general get to that point where they realize that they’re not alone.”
Football SAWL Spencer C. Rolland ’22 said that, after tak ing advantage of health counseling, he felt like a weight had been lifted off of his shoulders.
“I think being able to speak kind of released that tension and kind of made it more relaxing and made me able to focus more on what I was doing,” he said. Rolland added that working to improve one’s mental health is “like any other muscle in your body or any other training that you do.”
“You need to make sure that it’s in its best shape so that you can compete at your highest lev el, whether it be in the classroom or on the field,” he said.
‘It’s Okay t No t Be Okay’ Earle said discussions surrounding mental health at Harvard are more common now than when she was a freshman. In March 2019, Harvard Ath letics and CAMHS co-founded the “Crimson Mind and Body Performance Program” to provide additional mental health support to student-ath letes in response to survey data. Through the program, li censed clinicians work with student-athletes and coaches. At the time, athletes said the pro gram was important because of the stigma some face seeking mental health-related help.
This past fall, men’s hock ey player Derek E. Schaedig ’22 wrote about about his struggles with mental health in an article for The Crimson. Earle said she helped create SAWL to contrib ute to a broader dialogue surrounding mental health.
“It’s really become a huge conversation. And so, I wanted to take advantage of that while I could to make sure people knew the resources and could be help ful people to their teammates,” she said.
Rolland said counselors and resources at Harvard have done a “great job” of helping students through health challenges they may face. Still, he said dialogue surrounding mental health has yet to make its way into daily conversation.
“It’s not gonna be the first thing that they bring up to peo ple or may not be one of those things that’s necessarily in the locker room,” he said. “I think there’s definitely room to grow.” Dornbach said he hopes more people will speak up about men tal health challenges they face. “I’ve seen people who look like the happiest people ever on the outside and something’s go ing on inside,” he said. “It’s not often talked about or looked at as cool to maybe discuss some of those things, but it’s real and it’s okay to not be okay.”
ema.schumer@thecrimson.com
PROFESS OR From Page 1 Prof. Withdraws from Singapore Criminal Case
that can lead to fines or prison time. Human Rights Watch has deemed the law contrary to the international human right of free expression.
“[The Attorney-General’s Chambers] has taken my post completely out of context,” Li wrote in an August 2017 letter to prosecutors, which he later released to the public. “What I said in my private post in con text does not pose any real risk of undermining public confi dence in the administration of justice.”
Li wrote in the letter that he did not authorize the post to be shared beyond his Facebook friends, but it was re-published widely by media outlets. The At torney-General’s Chambers unveiled the charges six days after he made the post, according to a
In light of these events, I have decided that I will not continue to participate in the proceedings against me.
Shengwu Li Assistant Economics Professor
case summary on the Supreme Court of Singapore’s website.
Singapore’s Attorney-Gen eral, Lucien Wang, previously served as the prime minister’s personal lawyer, according to the Straits Times.
Prosecutors offered to drop the charges in August 2017 if Li apologized and admit ted to making “false and baseless” statements, but Li refused, launching the criminal case. By that time, Li had left Singapore, according to a case summary on the Supreme Court of Singa pore’s website.
Li wrote in an October 2018 Facebook post that, as his law yers fought the charges on his behalf in Singapore in fall 2017, an agent of the Singaporean government served him papers on Harvard’s campus just after he finished giving a guest lec ture in Economics 2099: “Market Design.”
Li appealed on the grounds that he had been improper ly served papers out of jurisdiction. He wrote in a September 2019 Facebook post that his legal team received advice from prominent British lawyer and Queen’s Counsel David P. Pannick, who defeated British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s suspension of parliament over Brexit last fall.
In April 2019, however, a Sin gaporean court dismissed the appeal, according to the case summary.
On Feb. 3 this year, the High Court ordered that Li must at tend cross-examination proceedings and produce documents within 14 days, according to a media release from Singapore’s Attorney-General’s Chambers.
Li wrote on Facebook on Jan. 22 that Singapore’s Attor ney-General’s Chambers asked the High Court to strike parts of his defense affidavit and seal them from the public record, prompting Li’s decision to with draw from the proceedings.
“This is not an isolated inci dent, but part of a broader pattern of unusual conduct by the AGC,” Li wrote in the post. “In light of these events, I have de cided that I will not continue to participate in the proceedings against me.”
The reality is that Mr Li is now facing some serious questions in the hearing, and it is obvious that he knows that his conduct will not stand up to scrutiny.
Lai Xue Ying Singapore Attorney General’s Chambers Spokesperson
In an email, Singapore At torney-General’s Chambers spokesperson Lai Xue Ying re ferred to recent media statements. In a statement the day after Li’s Jan. 22 post, the Attor ney-General’s Chambers wrote that Li’s decision to end his par ticipation is a “clear acknowledgment” that Li’s defense has “no merits.”
“The reality is that Mr Li is now facing some serious ques tions in the hearing, and it is obvious that he knows that his conduct will not stand up to scrutiny,” the statement reads. “He has therefore contrived ex cuses for running away.”
“If Mr Li has nothing to hide, he should make himself avail able for cross-examination and answer the questions posed to him on oath,” it continues.
james.bikales@thecrimson.com
The T closes. We don’t.
