Money or Sustainability: Choose One

When it comes to climate justice, Harvard has a problem.

On one hand, the University is ostensibly dedicated to both sustainability and justice. As I’ve explored extensively in this column, Harvard pledges to be a leader in confronting the climate crisis and to prioritize “wellbeing and equity” in its approach. On the other hand, Harvard Management Company’s highest priority is maintaining and increasing the endowment.

One way this tension manifests is through Harvard’s long-held relationship with the fossil fuel industry. Harvard held endowment investments in the fossil fuel industry until 2021, when it moved to divest, and various research programs at Harvard still receive funding from fossil fuel companies.

Another way Harvard continues to drive climate injustice is its deeply extractive relationship with land.

Following the 2008 financial crisis, Harvard began buying up agricultural land and other “natural resource assets” to diversify its investments. Over the following years, the University spent more than a billion dollars — or more than the entire endowments of many smaller universities — amassing land in South Africa, Eastern Europe, the United States, Australia and New Zealand, and especially South America.

The environmental effects of these land grabs were gruesome. Natural forests in Brazil were clear-cut and burned, and the excessive use of toxic chemicals infected water used for drinking and fishing. The resulting extreme deforestation also strongly exacerbated the effects of the climate crisis.

Local people also suffered. Formerly public land was fenced off from the people who had traditionally gained a living from it. Native inhabitants were allegedly forced away from their land through a combination of division, bribery, and intimidation.

Harvard can’t plead ignorance, either: A court-filed document of correspondence between Harvard leadership and involved companies indicates that Harvard was aware of both the prospect of massive deforestation and conflict with local people in some of its land holdings. Yet, this awareness didn’t seem to stop them from going forward with buying up and eventually selling the land.

This type of extractive land practice doesn’t seem related to Harvard College’s central mission of education — and it certainly doesn’t relate to the University’s ideals of advancing sustainability and equity. In fact, it seems to counteract them.

But these investments weren’t made to advance education or make a positive impact on the world. They were made in pursuit of profit.

Since coming under fire in 2018 for its farmland holding practices — and since its natural resource investments didn’t pay off as expected — Harvard has been working to sell off most of its land grabs. Many of the lands have remained idle for years; but still, the lands have not been returned to their indigenous inhabitants, who are kept away by security guards. Amid this deep injustice, the then-head of natural resources investments for Harvard’s endowment expressed fear primarily at the prospect of running out of money and not finding a lucrative sale.

There has been some progress, however. Groups like Stop Harvard Land Grabs have been working to expose and end Harvard’s problematic land practices.

Just this year, they helped win an important victory. A reservoir project was proposed on land previously controlled by and still indirectly owned by Harvard Management Company. Many locals, as well as Harvard affiliates, testified against the project because of concerns about water access and environmental impact. The proposal was ultimately rejected.

The community showing up to push against Harvard’s extractive land processes is a heartening development. But the dynamic is telling: The locals, students, and activists in this case were fighting against Harvard’s investments and practices — rather than Harvard supporting them in pursuit of environmental justice.

Harvard’s wealth doesn’t have to be at odds with its environmental mission. Theoretically, the University could channel the vast resources of its endowment toward improving sustainability efforts and student life. That is certainly an important goal, as I have pointed out elsewhere.

But as long as endowment wealth is gained at the cost of advancing environmental injustice in other parts of the world, Harvard isn’t prioritizing equity and well-being. Any sustainability efforts that come from sacrificing the rights of vulnerable communities aren’t worth it.

Despite efforts to sell off its land investments, Harvard’s transition away from this extractive practice is not complete. Harvard should make a point to end not just individual investments, but the practice of land grabbing overall. It should also pay reparations to the communities harmed by its past actions.

And it should reconsider how to ethically handle an endowment larger than the GDP of some nations. The University must confront this problem head-on, and choose between wealth-grabbing and environmental justice. Only one can be Harvard’s central priority.

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