Following Chapman University’s April 1 announcement of its plans to divest from fossil fuels, our editorial board waited for the inevitable “April Fools!” So when the punchline never came, we were pleasantly surprised at what seemed like a positive direction for the university.

Occurring just 21 days before Earth Day, the declaration marked a long-overdue response to the vehement criticism directed in 2016 toward the institution’s sustainability efforts — or rather, the lack thereof.

Apart from releasing harmful levels of carbon dioxide when burned, mining fossil fuels leads to a degradation of the natural environment and dangerously pollutes our waterways. With the planet warming at an alarming rate, U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said at the April 4 launch of the third Intergovernmental Climate Change Report that it is “moral and economic madness” for entities to continue investing in new fossil fuels.

It appears Chapman took these words literally, as their revised endowment policy specifies the “Investment Committee will not knowingly approve any new (emphasis added) investments in private partnerships or commingled fund vehicles whose stated strategy and/or underlying investments primarily include companies engaged in exploration or production of fossil fuels.”

So what about the university’s current investments in companies that continue to advocate for the fossil fuel industry?

As a non-profit institution, the majority of Chapman’s financial assets are derived from endowment funds — contributions of money or property from charitable donors — which totaled $564 million in May 2021. In an interview with The Panther, Vice President of Investments and Administration Janna Bersi said the portion of the endowment that stems from fossil fuel money was decreased to less than 3% by August 2021. 

But don’t be misled by the seemingly small percentage. Fossil fuel investments in undisclosed vendors still represent approximately $16,920,000 of the university’s endowment portfolio.

The university’s 2020 tax filings with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service reveal a list of the institution’s top five highest paid independent contractors. In second place is Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, a Los
Angeles based law firm to which Chapman paid $822,630 for provision of ambiguous “legal services.”

However, what Chapman’s filings don’t disclose is that this money is supporting a legal practice that routinely lobbies for the fossil fuel industry — often at the expense of Indigenous people. 

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher spent over a decade representing the Chevron Corporation, the second largest energy company in the U.S. more commonly known for its signature red and blue gas station logo. Indigenous communities of the Amazon alleged Chevron was responsible for an oil spill that poisoned inhabitants of the region. 

Despite an Ecuadorian court order mandating the communities receive a $18 billion judgment — which was then reduced to $9.5 billion — Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher lobbied to overturn the ruling. Later, they even filed criminal contempt charges for bribery against Steven Donziger, the human rights lawyer representing the Ecuadorian plaintiffs, which resulted in his house arrest, brief imprisonment and an $800,000 bail bond. 

The whole affair screams “sore loser.” Not only did the law firm silence its opponents into submission to skew the judicial outcome in its favor, but Ecuadorians never received as much as a dollar of their original judgment.

As recent as December 2021, university law students involved in Law Students for Climate Accountability (LSCA) launched a #DoneWithDunn boycott against Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher for the firm’s history of anti-environmentalist litigation. Students specifically condemned the firm’s representation of the Dakota Access Pipeline in an ongoing lawsuit filed by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, who argue the 1,172-mile pipeline infringes on their Indigenous lands and raises the risk of oil contamination in the tribe’s fresh water supply.

LSCA also released their 2021 Climate Scorecard, an annual review of American law firms to identify how much their legal representation negatively impacts the environment, which placed Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher in the lowest “F” category.

Chapman has repeatedly declined to disclose the company names of other investors who actively support the fossil fuel industry. Though if their relationship with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher is any indication, they certainly do exist.

The nearly $17 million of fossil fuel money in the endowment is a lingering stain on the university’s sustainability efforts, regardless of increased attempts to promote a green learning environment in recent years. 

Chapman invested in renewable energy in October 2020, according to Bersi, as well as the California carbon market in December 2021. 

The university has attempted to make various efforts across campus to increase sustainability.

Since 2012, Chapman implemented 17 refillable water stations throughout main campus and student housing as well as electric vehicle charging stations in Chapman parking facilities. Another notable feat was the addition of food pantries to both the Orange and Rinker campuses, respectively, for students experiencing food insecurity.

We’re not saying these positive changes serve no value; but rather, their value is minimized when coupled with continued investment in groups that harbor unsustainable ideologies.

It’s also important to recognize that the push for sustainable reformation on campus has been largely student-driven. From the original petition for Chapman to divest from fossil fuels — which was created by a student organization called Fossil Free Chapman in 2015 — to the emergence of other environmental clubs like Mission Environment and Chapman Food Recovery Network, students have been at the helm of steering Chapman toward an eco-friendly campus.

Divesting from fossil fuels is certainly the right move on the part of the university, but the road to get there might take much longer than students anticipated. We don’t just want a guarantee Chapman will prohibit future investments from companies that support the fossil fuel industry; we want assurance current investments will be withdrawn. And we want recognition for the students who have been fighting this battle for the last six years.