It’s Not About Peabody: Why We’re Having the Wrong Discussion

BY KAITY SHEA CULLEN

Beneath the archway of Brookings Hall, a group of student activists remain steadfastly put, no less deterred by administrative pressures than by St. Louis’s capricious spring weather.

The students are bold in their demands: remove Peabody Energy CEO Greg Boyce from the university’s Board of Trustees, and have Chancellor Wrighton take a community organized tour of Peabody’s extraction zones and issue a public statement.

The students’ motivations stem from what is undisputedly a series of gross injustices by the St. Louis-based coal company. Citing the relocation of indigenous American communities, mining practices that endanger employees and ecosystems alike, and subversive business tactics that left thousands of workers without promised healthcare and pension plans, the students are attracting support from professors, alums, and local unions.

The activists are undoubtedly well intentioned, and Peabody Energy is certainly deserving of criticism. But speaking pragmatically, the efforts of the protestors exemplify an idealized approach to complex business practices that rightfully lie beyond the sphere of student influence.

The success of the protest would threaten to significantly reduce funding for green energy research at Wash U.  The Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization, to which Peabody is a major contributor, provided over $12 million to the university’s research into green energy and sustainability.  This is worth over three and a half times the value of the recent government grant, and support from private corporations will almost certainly continue to be a vital piece of the Consortium’s funding.

Green energy research is an important part of Wash U’s commitment to sustainability. To have an environmentalist group seeking to choke off funds just seems a little bit counterproductive.

But the reduction in research has a greater impact on Wash U’s student body. As Provost Thorp emphasized in our recent exchange, the excellence of a university is judged in part by the quality of its research. Peabody’s support is significant not only to the actual research being done, but to the overall value of our degree and the reputation of Wash U. Furthermore, the chancellor’s resoluteness on this issue suggests that Peabody’s support does indeed have a meaningful impact on the way the academic and professional communities assess Wash U.

If Peabody’s investments in the university were negligible, Wrighton would have had much more incentive to come to the negotiating table before the conflict, which began in 2009, escalated to a point of national attention and withheld donations.  Moreover, board members can’t simply be traded around like meal points.  If Boyce is removed from the board, there is no guarantee that whatever contributions he makes would be matched by his eventual successor.

Losing the research funded by Peabody would reflect poorly on the university, including our undergraduate programs. But casually accepting this as a justified cost of removing Boyce sets a larger, more dangerous precedent that could lead to larger financial troubles down the road.

By excluding the larger goal of divestment from their demands, a central part of the protestors’ objectives relies on sending a statement to the larger community. And removing the CEO of the largest coal company in the world would certainly send a statement. But it might not be the one the protestors are hoping for.

While their goal is to demonstrate to the public that Wash U stands for sound environmental practices, this fact is already widely demonstrated on campus. Rigorous building standards and bans on water bottles and plastic bags reinforce the notion that our administration is genuinely committed to serving environmental causes. This isn’t something we need a coerced statement to prove.

The more resounding statement would be the one echoing the ears of potential investors in Wash U. Removing Boyce from the board won’t reverse the injustices that have been committed or ensure that Peabody considers reform. Realistically, it will do little more than relegate their corporate influence to back channels even less transparent than the existing arrangement.

What it would do is indicate to other potential contributors that Wash U’s administration is liable to back out of a valuable, high stakes, and enduring relationship as soon as students park a couple tents outside the admissions office. If the university is to continue the upward trend it has enjoyed over the past decade, maintaining an image as a secure investment among a wide variety of potential donors is critical.

Ultimately Wash U’s political relationships, financial investments, and business structure encompass an intricate set of challenges, and our administration’s decisions in these areas represent something about which students frequently opine, but are rarely adequately informed.

I don’t dispute that the undergraduate population here is intelligent. The activists are certainly knowledgeable about the corporate practices of Peabody, and every day I rub elbows with students that I’m sure will go on to manage Fortune 500 corporations.

But we aren’t there yet.

The Board of Trustees isn’t a club designed to wave the flag of social change and look nice for our recruitment brochures. It’s a carefully selected board of professionals designed to ensure Wash U’s continued success as an extremely large, complex, and functionally diverse institution.

It’s a dirty, grimy business that often has no right answers or obvious solutions. As intelligent and talented as the student body is, we aren’t qualified to make the difficult choices about how to run a multi-billion dollar company. That’s best left to people who already run multi-billion dollar companies.

In addition, those who invest their own money in our institution deserve the opportunity to determine how university dollars are spent, and that’s what a position on the Board of Trustees offers.

Mr. Boyce’s membership on the board indicates that we value his financial support of Wash U and his ability to handle the fiscal challenges of a large institution. It doesn’t suggest that Wash U supports his company’s politics or has any intention or inclination to ever follow suit.

Ultimately, the activists, while noble in their cause, have extended beyond the sphere of influence for which they are suited or qualified.  Moreover, our administration is remarkably open to listening to student voices within the realm that is appropriate, as evidenced by its considerations of mixed gender housing, its commitment to the Mosaic Project, and its support of student-led environmental efforts across campus.

I’m not saying don’t take on challenging issues.  I’m not saying never question the administration. And I’m certainly not saying that I support the practices of Peabody Energy.

I don’t.

But the second side to this story doesn’t have to do with some backwards justification of Peabody’s practices. It doesn’t have to do with stating a commitment to sustainability that we already show every day.

It has to do with acknowledging coal’s entrenched place in the energy market and our resulting social responsibility to develop clean coal technology. It has to do with how our university is perceived to potential employers and grad schools in the years to come. And it has to do with the academic reputation and array of resources that we want to leave for the students that come after us.

But there’s one thing we agree about: It does have to do with people. It does have to do with Wash U’s responsibilities to the community.

And it does have to do with us.