By Erik Squire
Education Major
Last semester, the Student Senate held a campus-wide referendum in which hundreds of students voted in support of passing. The referendum was regarding whether or not The Maine Community College System (MCCS) should divest from all fossil fuels, a policy initiative drafted by Alpha Chi Nu, SMCC’s chapter of Phi Theta Kappa Honor Society. If successfully enacted, Maine’s community college system would be the very first in the nation to make this feat.
After the initiative was passed in the Student Senate, and passed as a referendum, it was brought before both the Faculty Senate and the MCCS Board of Trustees. It is still waiting to be addressed by the Board of Trustees, but was entirely dropped from the Faculty Senates agenda by an 8-4 vote. To explore the reasoning behind the Faculty Senate’s decision, The Beacon conducted several interviews with those in support and opposition of the Senate discussing the initiative.
First, as a backdrop to the issue, The Beacon asked Alpha Chi Nu (ACN) President Jason Glynn to explain a little about the divestment initiative.
Our honors society does a research-based service learning project each year that betters the college or larger community. 2014 was the hottest year on record, and in 2013, carbon levels in the atmosphere were measured at 400 parts per million for the first time. Our climate is changing, and we are adding to it. The burning of fossil fuels is clearly linked with climate change. Our honors society believes we should send a message that we care about our environment via our Maine Community College System’s investments. As a chapter, we gathered hundreds of signatures, passed a resolution through our Student Senate, held the first referendum SMCC has had in a decade, and have partnered with numerous organizations. We have met with the BoT’s CFO, received the endowment portfolio and Investment Policy Standards, and already have extrapolated how many fossil fuel investments our college owns. Divestment is simple – it’s the opposite of investment. People can initiate change, but money makes change.
Equipped with some insight on the initiative, The Beacon reached out to Faculty Senate President Chuck Gregory, Ph.D. He is a 23 year veteran at SMCC, and a full-time faculty member of the Science Department. He teaches a diversity of science classes: Anatomy & Physiology I & II, Oceanography, Ecology, Marine Botany, and Seatime.
As Senate President, Dr. Gregory put the divestment item on the agenda to decide whether or not the issue would get taken up by the Senate. When asked what lead him to this decision and why he supported keeping it on the agenda, he replied:
As Faculty Senate President I was approached by a student, Saman Baghestani, who showed me a version of the divestment policy from the Student Senate. I reviewed it, made a few edits, bounced the edited version off of a few faculty colleagues, and added it to the Faculty Senate’s December meeting agenda for review and comment.
Being a science instructor I have been following the climate change issue for some time. I often have class discussions on climate change and its effects on the biosphere: atmospheric warming, ocean acidification, etc. My students seem eager to learn more as I stress that this issue is already having a direct impact on my generation, and will definitely have a profound impact on their generation. In addition, my brother is part of a legal team petitioning the US Supreme Court to have the federal government establish climate change strategy as part of the federal ‘public trust’ doctrine.
Gregory explains his thoughts on why the Faculty Senate chose not to take up the issue:
The SMCC Faculty Senate is undergoing a resurgence after a hiatus of many years. As a result, our agenda is chock full of ‘local’ academic issues in need of attention – establishing a representational Faculty Senate, editing By-Laws, enhancing advising, restructuring academic programs, realignment of Academic Divisions, budgets, etc., etc. I feel the thought of dealing with an issue destined for the MCCS Board is beyond our current capacity, and, ultimately, a distraction from these pressing campus issues.
To get a broader picture, The Beacon spoke with English Professor Paul Trahan, likewise a member of the Faculty Senate. Trahan has been an adjunct faculty member for nearly 11 years and served as the Chapter President of the MCCS Adjuncts Union MSEA Local 1989 for over 4.5 years.
In the interview, Trahan addressed why he personally supported the Student Senate’s referendum by saying:
Climate change and humanity’s involvement in it are proven science. The Student Senate took the unprecedented step of supporting divestiture and I felt that not only should they be commended, they should be supported. If not in academia, where can this discussion take place intelligently? “Politicized science is dangerous” – Michael Crichton.
When asked why Trahan believed the divestment issue wasn’t taken up by the Faculty Senate, he responded:
The majority of Faculty Senators present did not feel as though divestiture is an appropriate issue to debate in the Faculty Senate forum. I couldn’t disagree more. The Faculty Senate is clearly the place where intellectual pursuits and academic responsibility merge. Our discussion that day was a mini-debate about debating or not debating the issue itself.
A number of the Faculty Senators felt that divestment is a political issue; like most things involving people with different views, it can be. Personal relationships are, in a sense, political. However, putting overt politics aside, it is my belief that endorsing the Student Senate’s reasoned and thoughtful position was important and not to do so was an abrogation of our, the Faculty Senate’s, responsibility. Remember, a resolution endorsing divestment is non-binding to the MCCS Board of Trustees.
What was proposed had important, symbolic meaning. It was intended to bring awareness and generate debate by those who actually control the financial well-being of the community college system. If the Rockefeller Foundation – created by fossil fuel monies – can divest itself of its fossil fuel holdings and invest in renewable energy, why not the MCCS and the University of Maine System? Multiple Ivy League colleges are divesting. My understanding is that the SMCC Student Senate is the first community college body of its kind nationally to take the action that it has. They should be praised and supported for their commitment.
The Beacon also interviewed Faculty Senate member Professor Daniel Abbott, one of the eight who voted against putting the initiative on the agenda. Abbott has taught in the Architectural and Engineering Design department at SMCC for 26 years. He teaches technical graphics, computer-aided design, and mechanical design classes for majors SMCC’s department and for students in the integrated manufacturing and composites programs. He also teaches advanced coastal navigation on campus as a member of the Coast Guard Auxiliary.
When The Beacon inquired why Abbott personally chose not to take up the divestment issue, he explained:
I voted against joining the Student Senate because I don’t see this as an issue that falls within the purview of the Faculty Senate. My vote on this issue is separate from my personal concerns about the effects of carbon on climate. I’ve been a strong advocate of alternative fuels since 1972, when I converted my Ford Falcon to run on propane.
As to what Abbott speculates as being the reason the Faculty Senate turned the initiative down, he states, “I think divestment was seen as a partisan political issue that is not related directly to teaching.”
Finally, Abbot wanted to share his sentiment about the campus continuing its pursuit to become more environmentally responsible; he expresses:
SMCC has a history of addressing environmental issues when educating technicians in heating, building construction, automotive technology, composite technology, horticulture, and design.
I have spent a lot of time and money over four decades advocating for the use of less-polluting alternative fuels and educating students to enter fields in which technology can be developed to address such problems. I hope those concrete efforts are not overlooked in the passionate debate that will no doubt continue about this issue.
When ACN President Jason Glynn was asked what his thoughts were on the Faculty Senate’s decision, this is what he articulated:
I believe that our governing bodies should collaborate and work together on issues that the students clearly care about and support. Despite having the support of numerous forward-thinking Faculty Senators, it was wrongly politicized, so they regrettably decided not to even discuss the issue. However, their vote wasn’t as disappointing as the reception that we received there. It is clear students aren’t welcome in their clubhouse and they shut the door of collaboration in our faces.
As to the next step for the divestment initiative, Glynn offered this answer:
Thankfully, we are well beyond the Faculty Senate. Our proposal has already made it to the MCCS Board of Trustees, and we are on the Finance Committee and Board’s agendas in the coming months. However, we intend on sending out the same Survey Monkey referendum question to all faculty and staff, to gauge their thoughts on an individual level. I’m confident that the majority of faculty supports this, and they shouldn’t be held hostage by the few that have power.
Glynn added these words as a final thought:
Although the Faculty Senate politicized this heavily, it is not a political issue. This issue is environmental and societal. I want to leave this world better than I found it. Something has to be done. We should get on the right side of history and become the first community college system in the nation to divest.
The Last Word: All three Faculty Senate members were asked the question, “Would the proposition be taken up if it were revised?” Below are their replies:
As President, I don’t mind revisiting the issue, but I will need a lot more support from my Faculty Senate colleagues.” – Professor Gregory
I would hope that it would be; I’m cautiously optimistic. A Faculty Senator has suggested that the question be opened to all SMCC Faculty members. I’m supportive of the idea. Still, we were elected Senators to represent the Faculty and to take a stand when required. Part of that responsibility is to address issues that directly affect the college community, especially where we can individually and collectively effect necessary change. In this case, divestment and the future of our planet. – Professor Trahan
Revised or not, I would not support a proposal to pressure the board of trustees on any investment decisions. – Professor Abbott