Opinion: Sierra Student Coalition secured minor victory at BOT meeting

T he Board of Trustees Finance and Infrastructure Committee should be applauded for its decision on Wednesday to publicly back the UNC Sierra Student Coalition’s mission. The full Board of Trustees should follow suit today.

During its meeting Wednesday, the Finance and Infrastructure Committee unanimously voted in favor of the student group’s proposal to the board — “To promote economic growth, energy independence and environmental and public health, we recommend that the University target investments in clean energy.”

Wednesday’s win for the Sierra Student Coalition should not distract its members from their longtime mission of encouraging UNC Management Company, the company responsible for investing the University’s endowment, to divest its money from coal-related companies and industries.

In May 2010, the Sierra Student Coalition experienced its first major policy success when the University agreed to stop burning coal at the Cogeneration Plant on Cameron Avenue. The University committed to fully eliminating its carbon footprint by 2050.

Shortly after its first victory, the Student Sierra Coalition built a campaign and galvanized a network of students, faculty and staff to encourage the UNC-system to divest its endowment from coal.

They were at first met with resistance from administrators and executives at UNC Management Company. Some members of the Board of Trustees thought completely divesting from coal would leave the portfolio vulnerable. The Student Sierra Coalition has spent years fighting administrators to make the change anyway.

In an interview with The Daily Tar Heel, Tait Chandler, a senior and a member of the of the Student Sierra Coalition since 2011, said that until today, “We’ve had very few tangible results from the administrators. This is the first time that we’ve been able to collaboratively come to a decision and pass something. It’s actually in the flesh.”

Despite his impending graduation, Chandler said he’s committed to strengthening the group for future encounters with the Board of Trustees.

Unfortunately, the committee appears to remain hesitant to consider divestment as a viable action. One board member expressed his optimism for the approach the Sierra Student Coalition took with its most recent request, making it clear the committee preferred the compromise to invest in clean energy. This is not optimal for the Sierra Student Coalition, which should keep an eye on reopening discussions of divestment.

UNC has long been a leader in sending powerful messages through the companies it invests in.

In the 1980s, student-led protests called on UNC to stop investing in companies operating and doing business in South Africa in response to apartheid. Those protests — in which students set up shantytowns in Polk Place in solidarity with the conditions endured by the black population in South Africa — culminated in the University divesting from those companies.

During the committee meeting, Chancellor Carol Folt told the student presenters they demonstrated “maturity” because of their apparent willingness to compromise. Folt and the rest of the Board of Trustees should understand that the fight for the University to divest is far from over. Seventy-seven percent of students voted “yes” to a referendum calling for the University to divest in March 2013. That number can’t be ignored.

The Board of Trustees’ commitments can only succeed if they are held accountable by the agents of change for a period longer than a typical student’s stay at UNC. As the Sierra Student Coalition moves forward, it must keep this goal in mind. It must remain resolute in its mission to divest from a form of energy that should be left in the ground and history books.