2018 divestment Proposal : Coal & Tar sands
FFP submitted the following document to the University Secretary in September 2018, in accordance with the Trustees' Guidelines and Procedures for divestment.
In October of 2018, the University Council Steering Committee informed Fossil Free Penn’s leaders that the proposal "did not merit further consideration" by an ad hoc committee – the highest and final level of administrative review.
In an email to the FFP leadership, Dr. Pinto-Martin, chair of the Steering Committee, justified Steering’s decision with the pretext that the proposal “did not represent a substantive change from the proposal that went forward to the Trustees in 2015.”
Upon receiving this message, it became clear that the Steering Committee based its determination on totally arbitrary reasoning. There exists not a single publicly available document or resource establishing dissimilarity between proposals as a necessary criterion.
The Steering Committee rejected the 2018 proposal on terms decided upon behind closed doors.
Fossil Free Penn does not have the power to appeal this unjust decision. No system exists at Penn to adjudicate such institutional disputes. The course of FFP’s troubling dealings with the Steering Committee represents more than just another demonstration of the University’s unwillingness to seriously consider fossil fuel divestment. More broadly, it indicates that the official avenues Penn’s administration has set in place to receive
In October of 2018, the University Council Steering Committee informed Fossil Free Penn’s leaders that the proposal "did not merit further consideration" by an ad hoc committee – the highest and final level of administrative review.
In an email to the FFP leadership, Dr. Pinto-Martin, chair of the Steering Committee, justified Steering’s decision with the pretext that the proposal “did not represent a substantive change from the proposal that went forward to the Trustees in 2015.”
Upon receiving this message, it became clear that the Steering Committee based its determination on totally arbitrary reasoning. There exists not a single publicly available document or resource establishing dissimilarity between proposals as a necessary criterion.
The Steering Committee rejected the 2018 proposal on terms decided upon behind closed doors.
Fossil Free Penn does not have the power to appeal this unjust decision. No system exists at Penn to adjudicate such institutional disputes. The course of FFP’s troubling dealings with the Steering Committee represents more than just another demonstration of the University’s unwillingness to seriously consider fossil fuel divestment. More broadly, it indicates that the official avenues Penn’s administration has set in place to receive
