Eight members of the student group GU Fossil Free presented a finalized proposal to the university’s Committee on Investments and Social Responsibility, an advisory committee to the Board of Directors, on Monday afternoon. A result of collaboration between both students and faculty, the proposal calls on the university to cease investing in companies involved with the production of fossil fuels and natural gas. Prior to the presentation, members of GU Fossil Free gathered outside McShain Lounge along with representatives from GUSA and H*yas for Choice, graduate students, and faculty. The rally participants bore signs and shouted slogans thanking CISR for hearing the proposal, which CISR estimates it will vote on by the end of the academic year.
But things could have turned out quite differently. According Nina Sherburne, a preschool teacher with the university’s Hoya Kids Learning Center and member of GU Fossil Free, the group planned Monday’s rally as either a protest—in the event that CISR refused to hear their presentation—or a positive demonstration of thanks. Fossil Free’s double preparation, however, illustrates the uncertainty with which numerous campus groups must now approach university administration. The mistrust fostered by proposals that overlook student interests, such as a required third-year meal plan and the combination of three campus diversity centers, is directly to blame.
CISR’s recent exchange with GU Fossil Free, however, was markedly different. Their interaction was characterized by fair-mindedness, engagement, and a desperately needed resemblance to actual conversation. As it relates to student groups and administration, the model seems readily replicable across campus as a way to fairly balance administrative realities with student interests.
Students and administrators alike must recognize that dialogue is not guaranteed to produce a resolution wholly palatable to either side. For instance, CISR has stated that it will likely not put GU Fossil Free’s proposal to a vote until the end of the academic year. Representatives from GU Fossil Free have confirmed that they hope to lobby the committee into accelerating its timeframe. Approval from the committee would allow the group to present their proposal to the Board of Directors.
But the crucially present element is engagement. Representatives from GU Fossil Free expressed gratitude—and, perhaps, no small measure of relief—in response to CISR’s action.
The goal is for the university to transform the insubstantial efforts at student engagement—including those that led up to the Campus Plan and during the planning for the campus construction—in favor of a policy that engages with students fairly and responsibly when students make overtures that require engagement.
Throughout Georgetown’s history, whether in advocating for LGBTQ rights, promoting support services for minority students, or seeking to divest from companies that promote unsustainable environmental practices, the impetus for change on campus has come chiefly from student activism. Divestment has given university administrators an opportunity to redeem themselves and set a precedent of partnership, rather than evasion, when it comes to student engagement. The lesson couldn’t be simpler: when students speak—and they have—they deserve to be heard.
