Campaigners protest over ‘blood money’ investments that come ahead of a lawsuit brought by students over Harvard’s refusal to divest from companies that cause climate change

Harvard has newly invested tens of millions of dollars in oil and gas companies, rebuffing campaigners’ demands to sever the wealthy university’s ties to the companies that cause climate change.

The university’s refusal to withdraw an $32.7bn endowment from fossil fuels has frustrated campaigners and resulted in a law suit brought by seven Harvard students. The university – the world’s richest - is due to appear in court next month.



Now it emerges Harvard increased its holdings in publicly traded oil and gas companies by a factor of seven during the third financial quarter of 2014, the latest data available.

The new investments increased Harvard’s stake in oil and gas companies – including those involved in the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster and fracking – from $11.8m (£7.8m) to about $79.5m, according to an analysis of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings by campus divestment activists.

Jim Recht, assistant professor of psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School and a supporter of the divestment campaign, described the new oil and gas holdings as “blood money” and said they indicated Harvard’s unwillingness to review its policies despite the growing awareness of the dangers of climate change.

“That’s blood money,” he said. “It is making money out of something we see as fundamentally illicit.”

The biggest single investment was $57.4m in Anadarko Petroleum, which was involved in the Deepwater Horizon disaster and last year agreed to a $5bn fine for the clean-up of toxic waste sites. Other investments were in companies involved in fracking including Concho Resources Inc ($9.6m), Pioneer Natural Resources Inc ($9.3m), Range Resources Corporation ($2.2m) and WPX Energy ($979,000).

The SEC filings cover only a small fraction of Harvard’s $34bn endowment, said Chloe Maxmin, a co-founder of Divest Harvard, who analysed the investments. Most of the $34bn is not held in direct investments, and is not included in the SEC filings – which means fossil fuel holdings could be even greater.

Those new investments – and Harvard’s refusal to consider changes to endowment policies – have spurred new protests from students as well as faculty.

In a petition made available to the Guardian, five Harvard faculty members,including Recht said the new investments put the university out of step with a small but growing number of universities and philanthropic institutions, such as Stanford and the Rockefeller Brothers, that have reviewed or taken steps to eliminate fossil fuel holdings.

“In striking contrast to these other institutions, Harvard has newly invested tens of millions in publicly traded fossil fuel companies,” the five Harvard faculty members wrote.“Can putting tens of millions in companies like Anadarko be regarded as responsible sustainable investing – investing that befits a charitable corporation dedicated to scientific truth and ethical education? Such investments... signify an investment policy that is profoundly indifferent to its consequences,” the letter said.

“We are among a growing number of concerned faculty who question the idea that

investment returns are justified at any cost, including the enormous cost our students and future generations will need to pay for what the fossil fuel industry is doing now and — more importantly — for what it is planning and lobbying to do, with writing checks to political organizations a key part of that planning.”

Drew Gilpin Faust, Harvard’s president, has rejected fossil fuel divestment as not “warranted or wise”. In October 2013, she wrote: “The endowment is a resource, not an instrument to impel social or political change.”

Jeff Neal, a spokesman for Harvard, said in an email that the university acknowledged the “serious threat” of climate change. “We agree that threat must be confronted, but sometimes differ on the means. Harvard has been, and continues to be, focused on supporting the research and teaching that will ultimately create the solutions to this challenge,” he said.

Harvard’s unwillingness to reconsider its investment policies has frustrated campaigners. Seven students last year brought a lawsuit against the university, which the five faculty members supported in their letter as a “new and necessary type of thinking”.

The lawsuit argues that Harvard’s continued investment in fossil fuels is an abdication of its responsibilities to current and future generations of students.

“We are saying that investment in fossil fuels amounts to mismanagement of public charitable funds,” said Alice Cherry, one of the law students bringing the suit. “The language of the charter says that Harvard needs to protect the education and advancement of youth so that’s something we think is inconsistent with fossil fuel investments.”

The suit faces a high barrier, however. Harvard has sought its dismissal on the grounds that the students don’t have the standing to sue on behalf of future generations.

James Engell, an English professor and one of those who signed the letter, said the campaigners saw little evidence Harvard was considering a change in its policies.

“It is an interesting indication that Harvard went ahead about bought close to $80 million late last year in fossil fuels. It just shows that their attitude has not changed at all and they feel that for whatever reasons these are good investments,” he said.

“It sends a message that they are sticking to their policy.”