The Conversation has Started: Why Wash U Students Need to be Talking about Peabody
BY JOSELYN WALSH
On Thursday night, the Peabody sit-in ended. Here’s the big question: What has been its impact?
I began this week with a detailed plan of how I was going to finish all of my essays, study extensively for a weighty Friday exam, and get a near-optimal amount of sleep. That all changed when I read Kaity Shea Cullen’s article in the Wash U Political Review “It’s not About Peabody: Why we’re having the Wrong Discussion.” I was very interested to see what the discussion “should” be and was subsequently disappointed – and a little alarmed – to find her view seemed to be that students do not have the capacity to discuss real world issues. So I dropped everything and set out to find out what students were thinking about the sit-in.
I interviewed over 100 students all around campus, and although the interviews were informal and the sample was by no means any sort of official sampling of our student body, I did get a variety of perspectives and what I felt was a good feeling of how students are thinking of the sit-in in general, as well as the larger Wash U Students Against Peabody campaign the sit-in has brought awareness to. Most interviews were conducted in the DUC, Whispers, and BD.
Many students responded hesitantly, feeling they weren’t informed enough to make a decision. Of things students did know, the number one undisputed sentiment was that Peabody Energy is doing things students don’t like. The number one known fact by students about the movement was that protesters want Greg Boyce, the CEO of Peabody, off the board of trustees. Many people saw this as the only clear goal and were not really sure about what else was going on. They saw the movement as effective only to the extent that they thought it was likely or unlikely for Greg Boyce to actually be removed from the board. The main determinant in estimating the likeliness of his removal was questioning the monetary amount given by Peabody to the University. which yielded no answers since that amount is unknown to the general student body. It was basically unanimous for students to feel that if Peabody didn’t give money to the University, kicking him off the board would be common sense, but that they had to weigh the value of the money. A small number of students were quite critical of the campaign; however, many students admired the protesters, but were uncomfortable taking a side themselves.
Here are a couple of specific quotes that I think sum things up well:
“A lot is done online, and seeing the students out in the tents is really powerful.” – anonymous student
“Something like this would never have happened my freshman year. The campus climate on sustainability has significantly changed, along with attitudes about diversity and social responsibility.” – Austin Vanbastalaer, class of 2014
“They’re doing what I’m not doing, and am maybe too afraid to do…they’re actually taking action, and I’m just watching them do it.” Jesse Bogdan, class of 2017
“I really don’t think I’m informed enough to fully flesh out my opinion…I think it’s important that people are demonstrating about something they care about.” – anonymous student
With the ambiguous nature of the student body’s perceptions of what the sit in was all about, I scoured the web reading every article, watching every video, and listening to every radio broadcast that I could find about the sit in. I trekked around campus, asking faculty what they thought and even sat in on a heat/energy transfer class – more on that later. I also spent some time talking with students sitting at Brookings before the sit-in ended, and personally interviewed Caitlin Lee, one of the student activists, the day after the sit-in concluded. I think it’s interesting to point out that students generally haven’t realized the amount of national attention the sit-in has received, and I would venture to estimate that even fewer realize the role played by what’s going on at our campus in terms of the national divestment movement.
Some background: Students have been vocal about their opposition to Greg Boyce’s position on the board of trustees since 2009 when he was first added. Peabody donated $5 million of the $12 million given to Washington University to start the Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization, which you can read more about at: http://cccu.wustl.edu/. Peabody has a history of human rights violations as well, including pushing indigenous people off their lands and domineering the policies of urban and rural areas where they have mines in order to profit with what seems no regard for the interests of the people of those communities. When citing why they are protesting Peabody and not other companies associated with Wash U who have questionable business dealings, such as Arch Coal and Monsanto, student Nick Curry states while being interviewed by Charlie Brennan on CBS St. Louis:
We’re starting with Peabody in light of their recent actions in Rocky Branch…they have seized the rocky branch road, which is super important for local farmers to be able to access their grocery stores, their schools, their business, things like that…one of our demands is that students be given more voice in what happens on the board of trustees. Hopefully that will set up conversations for us to have other conversations about corporate interests in the future.
Curry’s statement gets at the heart of what seems to be the least understood demand by the student body, the idea that we need more student representation on the board of trustees. Caitlin Lee, another organizer of the group, urges us to consider the implications of having voices like those of Peabody outweigh the voices of student representatives on the board.
An active questioning of the power structures that reinforce Peabody’s influence over the University is what will create change. People have the agency to unpack and confront these oppressive structures – People Power, not Peabody Power. Boyce’s position on the Board of Trustees has long term effects on the University. That’s what the Board of Trustees is meant to do – look far into the future. But Peabody’s priority is profit, not people. Peabody’s actions until now have resulted in long term negative effects on bodies, communities and environments. This is testament to the reckless search for power and profit they’ve demonstrated. What evidence is there that the University will not suffer long term negative consequences because of our close relationship with Peabody? This questioning informs the goal of removing Boyce from the board.
Lee brings up a good point because a lot of students seem to be thinking about board of trustees members only in terms of the monetary strings attached to them, not of board member’s roles as being the University’s eyes into the future. Who’s to say Peabody’s role in the university won’t do the same kind of damage Peabody’s role in other communities in which they hold power has done?
“The board has limited student voice,” Lee says. To some students the limitedness of student voice makes sense. They point out the fact that we’re only here for four years, and it isn’t as if the majority of students even get involved in Student Union elections. Lee suggests however that there is a lot of evidence that some students are very involved and informed. She suggests that students who take strong stances are even silenced in the small position students do have, in the place of two student representatives on the board, who are chosen by the administration and the board. It’s also important to point out that many alumni/ae are still invested in the university for many years after their four years on campus, and that one can question whether a company like Peabody is ever truly invested in the university, or if they are simply creating ties because it makes their business look good. There are certainly many factors to consider.
And what about the money that is tied to many board members? Maybe we need to reconsider the role of money in deciding what the university allows itself to be tied to it. Do we maintain relationships with any potential donor, or are there times we need to say no to donations? And what does it mean in a larger, systematic sense when costs of a university are tied to corporate interests? Is it reasonable to cut ties with people who give money to the University by divesting from them? “We don’t think our education should come at the expense of degrading the environment, and of displacing people from their homes, and of ruining public health,” says Julia Ho, another student activist interviewed on CBS St. Louis.
As for the future of Wash U Students against Peabody now that the sit-in has ended, Lee states “It has become abundantly clear that the close relationship between Greg Boyce and the Washington University administration is impeding progress on this campus. As long as Greg Boyce sits on our board of trustees, the school will never re-name the Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization. The board of trustees meets this Thursday, May 1st. Leading up to and at this meeting, we will ask Boyce to step down and pressure other board members to remove him.”
I also asked faculty questions about what the main effects of the sit-in have been, and they’ve had lots of interesting insight. “All Washington University students and faculty may not be paying attention, but many are talking about the issues the sit-in raises,” says Dr. Dzuback, the director of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, referring to the raised awareness on campus:
Student protests had a significant influence in the last few decades on shaping public opinion about the US involvement in the Vietnam War, the divestment of university endowments from companies doing business in South Africa, the shifting of production of university-logo clothing from sweatshops overseas, and the discussions about a living wage on college campuses across the country…
Which is a good point those who don’t think students can make a difference may not have thought about. The fact is, students have made a difference historically.
“students bring fresh minds and ideas and their growing intellectual and civic engagement to consideration of these kinds of moral and political issues. And they have an investment in their institution’s ethical behavior. They are the beneficiaries of Washington University’s education and they want to be proud of their institution.” (to read more about framing our protest in a historical context, an interesting take can be found at: http://ecowatch.com/2014/04/23/wash-u-sit-in-peabody-moment-truth/)
Even more professors cite the discussion and awareness coming out of the sit-in.
“The most important effect of the sit-in is to raise awareness of important issues that include Peabody’s relationship with the university but also the impacts of coal on our climate and our health.” – Dr. Lowry, Department of Political Science
“It’s important that we’re having this discussion.” – Dr. Axelbaum, Director of the Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization
“The most important effect is to underscore that even in this era of academic capitalism, with increasing entanglements between corporate and university missions, we have to watch for particularly ill-advised compromises.” – Dr. Glenn Stone, Sociocultural Anthropology and Environmental Studies
“I am very positively impressed by, and proud of the leadership Wash U. students have taken on this issue and by how well they have represented the divestment position to the community.” – Dr. Feres, Department of Mathematics
“Wash U Students Against Peabody are raising critically important issues of social and economic justice. And beyond the immediate issue of Peabody, these students are shining an important light on some broader, under-discussed issues. What are the university’s sources of funds? And are those sources aligned with our core mission? I thank the students for bringing these tricky questions into the public domain.” – Dr. Metzger, Brown School of Social Work
students bring fresh minds and ideas and their growing intellectual and civic engagement to consideration of these kinds of moral and political issues
“The sit-in has drawn the world’s attention to a number of deep problems of Washington University, and of many American universities and of our global environmental and energy dilemma.” – Dr. Gustafson, Sociocultural Anthropology
I think many students would be interested to know: what does the Director of the Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization think of all this? Dr. Axelbaum was one of the professors with whom I had the opportunity to talk. They might be surprised to know that Dr. Axelbaum’s career in energy was triggered by the energy crisis in the 70s, when he was a student at Washington University. He didn’t begin his career with coal, but with big ideas about the future of solar energy.
One of the demands of the activists has been to change the name of the Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization. Let’s talk about that term “Clean Coal.” In its earliest historical context, clean coal was used to define coal that doesn’t soot. Today, it’s a commonly accepted term in circles which conduct the kind of research like that being done at Wash U. This research is in the area of Carbon Capture Utilization and Sequestration where researchers work to avoid releasing carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere. When the term “clean coal” was first used over 100 years ago, it was not intended to evoke feelings of coal as a clean energy source in the way “clean” is used today in the context of environmental sustainability. However, it is important to think about the ways in which the term has evolved in industry. The premise of the activists is that the term “clean coal” is now used as a term that helps corporations clean up their public image. It’s important to question whether or not the term “clean coal” is still really as harmless as its history suggest. It’s also important to question if research supported by the University is being used in intended ways outside the University.
I questioned Dr. Axelbaum on whether he feels his research is guided by corporations. “There is no research that does not have some kind of strings attached, but we trust in the academic integrity of our researchers to do what they think is right,” was his response, and Dr. Axelbaum is doing what he thinks is right in researching technology to make coal less detrimental to the environment. Although his research is funded in part by industry, that doesn’t change the fact that Dr. Axelbaum is an energy expert and cares vehemently about dealing with sustainability problems in energy. Here is what he says about dealing with the energy crisis urgently and realistically:
The problem with wishing away the problem is that it is just too big and too important to ignore. . . .If we lose electricity or destroy our climate our society will collapse. Our way of life is literally dependent on having clean electricity in the grid.
That’s not a company perspective. I think the main message here is that there isn’t one solution that everyone has to go for and support. The point isn’t necessarily to criticize the CCCU and its researchers, but to question a larger system in which all research is attached to someone’s strings.
Which gets to the bigger point, and the reason I’m writing. There are many huge issues this situation brings up that have no easy, clear, quick-fix solutions: the future of energy, human rights in the world of corporations, the role of student voices, the nature of relationships between corporations and universities. I’m not going to pretend I know what those answers are, but I think I know who can figure them out – us. What I do know is that because of the dedication of some students on campus and their willingness to take a stand on a controversial issue, many other students are discussing something they have never before seriously considered in very real ways. I know that because of this sit-in national audiences are watching and wondering – what solutions can be provided for our energy future and for the future of our universities? I know that because of this sit-in and the discussion surrounding it I overhear students using words like “coal” and “sustainable” and “worker’s rights” and I know they’re considering these issues. After our conversation, Dr. Axelbaum invited me to sit in on his heat/energy transfer class; I didn’t know what to expect after our interview, and the hefty packet of equations that was passed around as I sat down in the lecture hall did not fill me with confidence. To my surprise, he said “Forget the syllabus, in light of the Peabody sit-in and the discussion surrounding it, we’re going to talk about something else today.” To the surprise of many students he went on to discuss his views on the factors we need to think about when considering the future of energy, urging his students to seriously consider and analyze the future of energy. I know that as I was leaving that classroom I heard students around me saying “That was awesome” and questioning each other, “What do you think?” Imagine what we can do when everyone begins investigating, when professors get involved in the big picture, inspiring a generation of students by getting them to question issues, when students with all different backgrounds apply their knowledge to discussion.
I urge students to see the forest through the trees. Each movement, each act in each movement is not perfect and there will always be plenty to criticize. There will never be completely black and white, uncontroversial answers and solutions to the biggest problems, and it will always be easier to say let’s not discuss it, and hope everything works out. But fellow students, just because we don’t know the solution now doesn’t mean we shouldn’t question things. Just because we aren’t experts in every area of an issue doesn’t mean we can’t ask why things are done the way they are.
I urge you not to silence the activists with apathy and disinterest, but to either join voices with them or make your own voice heard. If you have an opinion, discuss it. Talk to your peers about their thoughts on these fundamental issues. Many of us are engaged in studies of information which we plan to use to tackle problems like these one day. Email Caroline Burney, Julia Ho, or Caitlin Lee and meet with them, ask them specific questions. Email the faculty who have signed the petition (listed on studentsagainstpeabody.org) and go talk to them about what they think. Talk to someone like Dr. Axelbaum about why he didn’t sign the petition. Don’t silence your own voice or the voice of others. Everyone SHOULD have an opinion. The future of energy, human rights, and corporations’ relationships with universities are all things that are affecting us and will continue to affect ALL of us. If you don’t have an opinion, inform yourself on the issue and make one.
Dr. Stone, a Professor in the Anthropology department, expressed his admiration for the sit-in:
I totally admire these students. They have had the [guts] to protest a problem in which the faculty has taken little interest, and they have gone about it very thoughtfully. And anyone who thinks this is a case of the realities of running a research university versus the naive idealism of youth needs to read Derek Bok (long-time president of Harvard) and his powerful critique of how research universities may jeopardize their fundamental mission.
Disagree? Tell him. Maybe he’ll change your mind. Maybe you’ll change his. “I have had several of these students in my classes, but today they are the real teachers,” he says of the activists. Everyone has the potential to be a voice, a teacher, a listener, a learner.
The conversation has started. Where will we, the leaders of tomorrow, the young adults who refuse to accept the label the “me” generation, the students of Washington University in St. Louis, take it?