Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Climate Change Conversation

Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Skoltech
SUSAN HOCKFIELD | JEFFREY EPSTEIN | CHARLES KOCH | MIT-RUSSIA AGREEMENT
Ten years ago
Susan Hockfield
announced
“...
The Engine
SUSAN HOCKFIELD | JEFFREY EPSTEIN | CHARLES KOCH | MIT-RUSSIA AGREEMENT
The Engine is a
greenwashing
machine… a...
Israel Ruiz
SUSAN HOCKFIELD | JEFFREY EPSTEIN | CHARLES KOCH | MIT-RUSSIA AGREEMENT
Israel Ruiz was
one of the mist
powerf...
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Upcoming SlideShare
Tricolor pdf 750-400.pdf
Tricolor pdf 750-400.pdf
Loading in …3
×

Check these out next

1 of 74 Ad

More Related Content

Recently uploaded (20)

Advertisement

Climate Change Conversation

  1. 1. Skoltech SUSAN HOCKFIELD | JEFFREY EPSTEIN | CHARLES KOCH | MIT-RUSSIA AGREEMENT Ten years ago Susan Hockfield announced “Mission Accomplished!” as she was getting out of Dodge. What happened? Ten years ago Susan Hockfield announced “Mission Accomplished!” as she was getting out of Dodge. What happened? Ten years ago Susan Hockfield announced “Mission Accomplished!” as she was getting out of Dodge. What happened? Ten years ago Susan Hockfield announced “Mission Accomplished!” as she was getting out of Dodge. What happened? Rafael Reif Former president Skolkovo Institute is a hydrocarbon research center funded by Russian oil oligarchs to solve technical challenges associated with shale and Arctic oil exploration and production, and to maintain fossil fuel monopoly and shut out any possibility of renewable energy.* Subjects Basic background information Maria Zuber Former president Skolkovo Institute is a hydrocarbon research center funded by Russian oil oligarchs to solve technical challenges associated with shale and Arctic oil exploration and production, and to maintain fossil fuel monopoly and shut out any possibility of renewable energy.* Israel Ruiz Former president Skolkovo Institute is a hydrocarbon research center funded by Russian oil oligarchs to solve technical challenges associated with shale and Arctic oil exploration and production, and to maintain fossil fuel monopoly and shut out any possibility of renewable energy.* Steve Brandt Executive Director, MIT News Office Skolkovo Institute is a hydrocarbon research center funded by Russian oil oligarchs to solve technical challenges associated with shale and Arctic oil exploration and production, and to maintain fossil fuel monopoly and shut out any possibility of renewable energy.*
  2. 2. The Engine SUSAN HOCKFIELD | JEFFREY EPSTEIN | CHARLES KOCH | MIT-RUSSIA AGREEMENT The Engine is a greenwashing machine… and a perfect opportunity to understand MIT greenwashing playbook. Ten years ago Susan Hockfield announced “Mission Accomplished!” as she was getting out of Dodge. What happened? Ten years ago Susan Hockfield announced “Mission Accomplished!” as she was getting out of Dodge. What happened? Ten years ago Susan Hockfield announced “Mission Accomplished!” as she was getting out of Dodge. What happened?
  3. 3. Israel Ruiz SUSAN HOCKFIELD | JEFFREY EPSTEIN | CHARLES KOCH | MIT-RUSSIA AGREEMENT Israel Ruiz was one of the mist powerful men in MIT history. And virtually no one at MIT knew who he was. What happened? Ten years ago Susan Hockfield announced “Mission Accomplished!” as she was getting out of Dodge. What happened? Ten years ago Susan Hockfield announced “Mission Accomplished!” as she was getting out of Dodge. What happened? Ten years ago Susan Hockfield announced “Mission Accomplished!” as she was getting out of Dodge. What happened?
  4. 4. Schlumberger, MIT, and Russia SUSAN HOCKFIELD | JEFFREY EPSTEIN | CHARLES KOCH | MIT-RUSSIA AGREEMENT Israel Ruiz was one of the mist powerful men in MIT history. And virtually no one at MIT knew who he was. What happened? Ten years ago Susan Hockfield announced “Mission Accomplished!” as she was getting out of Dodge. What happened? Ten years ago Susan Hockfield announced “Mission Accomplished!” as she was getting out of Dodge. What happened? Ten years ago Susan Hockfield announced “Mission Accomplished!” as she was getting out of Dodge. What happened?
  5. 5. Power at MIT SUSAN HOCKFIELD | JEFFREY EPSTEIN | CHARLES KOCH | MIT-RUSSIA AGREEMENT Israel Ruiz was one of the mist powerful men in MIT history. And virtually no one at MIT knew who he was. What happened? Ten years ago Susan Hockfield announced “Mission Accomplished!” as she was getting out of Dodge. What happened? Ten years ago Susan Hockfield announced “Mission Accomplished!” as she was getting out of Dodge. What happened? Ten years ago Susan Hockfield announced “Mission Accomplished!” as she was getting out of Dodge. What happened?
  6. 6. MIT Greenwashing SUSAN HOCKFIELD | JEFFREY EPSTEIN | CHARLES KOCH | MIT-RUSSIA AGREEMENT Israel Ruiz was one of the mist powerful men in MIT history. And virtually no one at MIT knew who he was. What happened? Ten years ago Susan Hockfield announced “Mission Accomplished!” as she was getting out of Dodge. What happened? Ten years ago Susan Hockfield announced “Mission Accomplished!” as she was getting out of Dodge. What happened? Ten years ago Susan Hockfield announced “Mission Accomplished!” as she was getting out of Dodge. What happened?
  7. 7. Susan Hockfield’s Resignation SUSAN HOCKFIELD | JEFFREY EPSTEIN | CHARLES KOCH | MIT-RUSSIA AGREEMENT Israel Ruiz was one of the mist powerful men in MIT history. And virtually no one at MIT knew who he was. What happened? Ten years ago Susan Hockfield announced “Mission Accomplished!” as she was getting out of Dodge. What happened? Ten years ago Susan Hockfield announced “Mission Accomplished!” as she was getting out of Dodge. What happened? Ten years ago Susan Hockfield announced “Mission Accomplished!” as she was getting out of Dodge. What happened?
  8. 8. Climate Change Conversation Announcement Breakdown MIT and the Climate Challenge: The Need for More Than Technical Solutions In September 2014, MIT established the Committee on the MIT Climate Change Conversation, with the mandate to “seek broad input from the Institute community on how the U.S. and the world can most effectively address global climate change.” During the ensuing academic year, the committee sponsored a number of educational events and a campus-wide debate on fossil fuel divestment, and surveyed the MIT community on a broad range of climate issues. In June 2015, it submitted an extensive report containing recommendations based on input from the MIT community. In October 2015, the Institute responded to that report by issuing “A Plan for Action on Climate Change” that outlines a number of concrete steps to address climate change. We praise the Institute’s explicit and forceful assertion in that document of the seriousness of the risks and challenges of climate change. MIT’s acknowledgement was followed two months later by the explicit recognition of the urgency of climate change issued unanimously by world leaders at the United Nations climate change negotiations (UNFCCC COP21 meeting) in Paris in December 2015. As with the Paris agreement, it is imperative that plans be followed by action. Thus we advocate that MIT’s plan for action be rapidly followed by an aggressive implementation plan that establishes clear management responsibilities and organizational frameworks, so that the steps identified in “A Plan for Action on Climate Change” can be realized, and that goals be made continuously more ambitious to align with the seriousness of the problem. As with the Paris accord, it is paramount that our money and energy be put where our mouth is. In this respect, we found the Institute’s funding commitment of $5 million for the Environmental Solutions Initiative (ESI) to be grossly inadequate for the scale and multidisciplinary scope of the climate challenge. While the Institute’s plan addresses the technical dimension – in the form of eight new low-carbon energy centers that will reaffirm MIT’s leadership in developing technologies to advance carbon-free energy – the economic, policy, and societal dimensions are largely unaddressed. Focusing on engineering a solution belies an integral component: without societal recognition of the risks and challenges of climate change, many low-carbon technologies may never be implemented – they will stand little chance as long as fossil fuels remain the cheapest option and without government-mandated incentives to change. If the Institute were to allocate significant resources toward bolstering such a multi-faceted approach, it could exercise intellectual leadership toward engendering strong societal support for a transition to new sources of energy. In tandem with a focus on technology, advancing the policy steps, the societal dimension, and the understanding of the science of those problems at the same time, MIT can build on existing entities such as the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. “Manus” alone cannot succeed without “mens.” In this regard, endeavoring to administer an internal carbon tax could harness the broad potential for education and participation as the Institute tackles the changes necessary to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change. Universities are at their best when they undertake unfettered search for truth. Such a pursuit is weakened and tarnished when it is associated with organizations and individuals that support campaigns of deception for financial gain; these are clearly distinguished from mere differences of opinion, which are an essential element in the quest for knowledge. In recommending the establishment of an Ethics Advisory Council, we sought to emphasize that investment ethics – particularly on assets that can negatively impact climate change – should derive from an open process that incorporates the sentiments and values of the larger MIT community. Many of our peers, includingHarvard, Princeton, Yale, Columbia, and Stanford, already have such entities to ensure that critical decisions involving institutional investments are made in ways that respect the university’s greater commitment to scientific truth.We are not suggesting that MIT’s current system ignores the ethics of investing, but rather that decisions around some issues – climate change among them – are too big and too important to leave to a select few to make.We advocate for a reconsideration of the decision not to establish an Ethics Advisory Council. We agree wholeheartedly on the importance of constructively working with industry on solutions to climate change, but also emphasize that there are higher standards to which MIT must be held, particularly in the face of such large-scale societal challenges as climate change. With its “Plan for Action on Climate Change,” MIT recognized the gravity of the challenge ahead. As the Paris accord is for the world, a plan for action is for MIT an essential, early step. Following up now with concrete action, and ramping up commitments as opposed to letting them dwindle, will be a momentous task, and one that we urge the Institute to accomplish. Signed, Kerry Emanuel, Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Atmospheric Science, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences; Bernadette Johnson, Chief Technology Officer, Lincoln Laboratory; Jacqueline Kuo, Undergraduate Student, Department of Mechanical Engineering; Christoph Reinhart, Associate Professor in Building Technology, Department of Architecture; Anne Slinn, Executive Director, Center for Global Change Science; Roman Stocker, Associate Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering; Climate Change Conversation By L. Rafael Reif. | October 21, 2015 Page 5 MZ Rafael Reif Former president Skolkovo Institute is a hydrocarbon research center funded by Russian oil oligarchs to solve technical challenges associated with shale and Arctic oil exploration and production, and to maintain fossil fuel monopoly and shut out any possibility of renewable energy.* Subjects Basic background information Maria Zuber Former president Skolkovo Institute is a hydrocarbon research center funded by Russian oil oligarchs to solve technical challenges associated with shale and Arctic oil exploration and production, and to maintain fossil fuel monopoly and shut out any possibility of renewable energy.* Israel Ruiz Former president Skolkovo Institute is a hydrocarbon research center funded by Russian oil oligarchs to solve technical challenges associated with shale and Arctic oil exploration and production, and to maintain fossil fuel monopoly and shut out any possibility of renewable energy.* Steve Brandt Executive Director, MIT News Office Skolkovo Institute is a hydrocarbon research center funded by Russian oil oligarchs to solve technical challenges associated with shale and Arctic oil exploration and production, and to maintain fossil fuel monopoly and shut out any possibility of renewable energy.* Steve Brandt Executive Director, MIT News Office Skolkovo Institute is a hydrocarbon research center funded by Russian oil oligarchs to solve technical challenges associated with shale and Arctic oil exploration and production, and to maintain fossil fuel monopoly and shut out any possibility of renewable energy.* Steve Brandt Executive Director, MIT News Office Skolkovo Institute is a hydrocarbon research center funded by Russian oil oligarchs to solve technical challenges associated with shale and Arctic oil exploration and production, and to maintain fossil fuel monopoly and shut out any possibility of renewable energy.* Rafael Reif Former president Skolkovo Institute is a hydrocarbon research center funded by Russian oil oligarchs to solve technical challenges associated with shale and Arctic oil exploration and production, and to maintain fossil fuel monopoly and shut out any possibility of renewable energy.* Subjects Basic background information Maria Zuber Former president Skolkovo Institute is a hydrocarbon research center funded by Russian oil oligarchs to solve technical challenges associated with shale and Arctic oil exploration and production, and to maintain fossil fuel monopoly and shut out any possibility of renewable energy.* Israel Ruiz Former president Skolkovo Institute is a hydrocarbon research center funded by Russian oil oligarchs to solve technical challenges associated with shale and Arctic oil exploration and production, and to maintain fossil fuel monopoly and shut out any possibility of renewable energy.* Steve Brandt Executive Director, MIT News Office Skolkovo Institute is a hydrocarbon research center funded by Russian oil oligarchs to solve technical challenges associated with shale and Arctic oil exploration and production, and to maintain fossil fuel monopoly and shut out any possibility of renewable energy.* Steve Brandt Executive Director, MIT News Office Skolkovo Institute is a hydrocarbon research center funded by Russian oil oligarchs to solve technical challenges associated with shale and Arctic oil exploration and production, and to maintain fossil fuel monopoly and shut out any possibility of renewable energy.*
  9. 9. In May 2012 the MIT Corporation elected Schlumberger director Leo Rafael Reif as the 17th president of MIT. And in December 2012 the MIT Corporation rewrote its bylaws. In the Jan/Feb 2020 MIT Faculty Newsletter, MIT professors Leigh Royden and Rosalind Williams describe these changes to the bylaws. At the December 2012 quarterly meeting of the Corporation, a quiet revolution in MIT governance took place. Unnoticed by nearly all faculty, this changed the dynamic balance that had previously existed between the Executive Committee and MIT’s senior leadership. In a series of votes by the Corporation, what had formerly been “Bylaws of The Corporation” were renamed “Bylaws of MIT.” Hundreds of changes were made to the Bylaws, with the new Bylaws stating that “The members of the Corporation constitute the government of MIT.” These changes confirmed and extended the purview of the Executive Committee: “The Executive Committee shall have responsibility for overseeing the general administration and superintendence of all matters relating to the Institute.” Royden and Williams FNL article, “MIT: Where Now?” Is based on interviews conducted over a six-week period with 11 senior MIT faculty offers an important insight into how MIT’s most senior and informed faculty understand the changes of the decade. We carried out these interviews over a six-week period beginning in early October. At the outset of each conversation, we told our colleagues that we wanted to discuss current events at MIT. We were purposely vague. We were most interested in learning what was on their minds, not in imposing what was on ours. We heard a near-consensus that MIT has “lost its way”; that the faculty have had little voice in setting institutional priorities and direction; and that pursuit of “the almighty dollar” has warped MIT’s values and threatens to jeopardize its fundamental mission… As the interviews progressed, it became clear to us that the problems at MIT are much bigger than the Epstein situation. We felt that we better understood some of the deep concerns and discontent among faculty. After some analysis, we have come to the conclusion that many of the issues described above have developed through recent change in the balance of power among faculty, senior administration, and the MIT Corporation – primarily the Corporation’s powerful Executive Committee. That is the subject of their article, “The balance of power among faculty, senior administration, and the MIT Corporation.” And that is the subject of this report. The authors and interviews accurately represent how these changes at MIT have affected themselves, but their understanding of the larger context is minimal. Fossil fuels are never mentioned. Schlumberger is never mentioned. The goal of the Corporations larger changes is simplified as “pursuit of the Almighty dollar,” and the truth is far more dangerous. In Schlumberger-related reports and documents, Rafael Reif refers to himself as Leo Rafael Reif. In any MIT-related context, he is formally referred to as L. Rafael Reif and informally as Rafael Reif. This report will use the same strategy. “MIT: Where Now?” Leigh Royden and Rosalind Williams, MIT Faculty Newsletter (2020). Introduction By Ed Carlevale | May 5, 2022 HG FOSSIL FUELS SUSAN HOCKFIELD GREENWASHING JEFFREY EPSTEIN ABOUT ME DIVESTMENT MIT CORPORATION
  10. 10. HG FOSSIL FUELS SUSAN HOCKFIELD GREENWASHING JEFFREY EPSTEIN ABOUT ME DIVESTMENT MIT CORPORATION The MIT Corporation ROYDEN AND WILLIAMS | OIL PRODUCTION IN RUSSIA | SKOLTECH | LYING TO THE MIT COMMUNITY | MIT SKOLTECH NEW COVERAGE
  11. 11. HG FOSSIL FUELS SUSAN HOCKFIELD GREENWASHING JEFFREY EPSTEIN ABOUT ME DIVESTMENT MIT CORPORATION Fossil Fuels SCHLUMBERGER | OIL PRODUCTION IN RUSSIA | SKOLTECH | LYING TO THE MIT COMMUNITY | MIT SKOLTECH NEW COVERAGE
  12. 12. HG FOSSIL FUELS SUSAN HOCKFIELD GREENWASHING JEFFREY EPSTEIN ABOUT ME DIVESTMENT MIT CORPORATION MIT Greenwashing SCHLUMBERGER | OIL PRODUCTION IN RUSSIA | SKOLTECH | LYING TO THE MIT COMMUNITY | MIT SKOLTECH NEW COVERAGE
  13. 13. HG FOSSIL FUELS SUSAN HOCKFIELD GREENWASHING JEFFREY EPSTEIN ABOUT ME DIVESTMENT MIT CORPORATION Susan Hockfield SCHLUMBERGER | OIL PRODUCTION IN RUSSIA | SKOLTECH | LYING TO THE MIT COMMUNITY | MIT SKOLTECH NEW COVERAGE
  14. 14. HG FOSSIL FUELS SUSAN HOCKFIELD GREENWASHING JEFFREY EPSTEIN ABOUT ME DIVESTMENT MIT CORPORATION Jeffrey Epstein SCHLUMBERGER | OIL PRODUCTION IN RUSSIA | SKOLTECH | LYING TO THE MIT COMMUNITY | MIT SKOLTECH NEW COVERAGE
  15. 15. HG FOSSIL FUELS SUSAN HOCKFIELD GREENWASHING JEFFREY EPSTEIN ABOUT ME DIVESTMENT MIT CORPORATION The MIT Corporation SCHLUMBERGER | OIL PRODUCTION IN RUSSIA | SKOLTECH | LYING TO THE MIT COMMUNITY | MIT SKOLTECH NEW COVERAGE
  16. 16. “At the December 2012 quarterly meeting of the Corporation, a quiet revolution in MIT governance took place. Unnoticed by nearly all faculty, this changed the dynamic balance that had previously existed between the Executive Committee and MIT’s senior leadership.” MIT Corporation
  17. 17. Jeffrey Epstein Coverup SUSAN HOCKFIELD | JEFFREY EPSTEIN | CHARLES KOCH | MIT-RUSSIA AGREEMENT HG SUSAN HOCKFIELD SKOLKOVO GREENWASHING JEFFREY EPSTEIN ABOUT ME DIVESTMENT A homepage is a platform. It is a community center. It is a recruiting center. MIT Corporation
  18. 18. MIT: Where Now? Leigh Royden and Rosalind Williams The August 2019 revelations that the MIT Media Lab had accepted donations from convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein sparked an upheaval among MIT faculty. A closed Media Lab meeting on September 4, intended to be calming, culminated in sobbing and yelling. On September 6, an exposé of the Media Lab in The New Yorker accused MIT leaders of engaging in years of evasion and deceit to conceal the affiliation with Epstein. On September 18, at an overflowing and emotionally- charged Institute faculty meeting, MIT faculty lined up to express their collective shame, outrage, and revulsion. Like many in the MIT community, we attended this meeting and participated in the dizzying whirl of communications involving multiple participants, venues, and formats. The Epstein affair uncovered so many problems that it was difficult to tease them apart or understand the contributing factors. To better understand what was happening, we decided to conduct some informal research consisting of interviews with 11 MIT senior faculty whose judgment we value either through personal acquaintance or reputation. Seven of the 11 have served on Academic Council, and all have held leadership positions at the Institute. They represent four of MIT's five Schools. We carried out these interviews over a six-week period beginning in early October. At the outset of each conversation, we told our colleagues that we wanted to discuss current events at MIT. We were purposely vague. We were most interested in learning what was on their minds, not in imposing what was on ours. We heard a near-consensus that MIT has “lost its way”; that the faculty have had little voice in setting institutional priorities and direction; and that pursuit of “the almighty dollar” has warped MIT’s values and threatens to jeopardize its fundamental mission. What has gone wrong? In the first part of this article, we focus on the words and ideas that we heard repeatedly during our interviews. (All 11 interviewees have reviewed this report. Nine felt that this article accurately represented their views, but two felt that their perspective was not represented.) In the last two sections, we present our own analysis and recommendations; these are ours alone. A Breakdown of Trust The faculty we spoke with lamented a breakdown in trust between faculty and the senior administration. In fact, this topic was raised near the beginning of every conversation and many emphasized that the loss of trust began before and extends beyond the Epstein affair. We were told “trust has broken down”; “our sense of trust is badly shaken”; “it feels like things are falling apart”; and “our problems are much deeper than Epstein.” When we asked more about loss of trust, our colleagues commonly began by citing the decision, starting in the Media Lab and eventually communicated upwards to a “senior team,” to negotiate with Epstein over donations and other forms of support. No one felt that this was an acceptable choice. The decision was interpreted not just as a failure of policies and procedures, but more fundamentally as a lack of judgment and integrity. Particularly troubling was a perceived lack of honesty among MIT leadership to take full responsibility for these events. Our interviewees were dismayed by what they saw as long-running efforts to avoid accountability through evasion or obfuscation. Some repeated a litany of names now connected with MIT – most notably David Koch, Mohammed bin Salman, Henry Kissinger, and Stephen Schwarzman – who cause faculty moral embarrassment because their public reputations are so antithetical to MIT’s professed ideals. Our faculty colleagues felt that MIT needs to be more open and thoughtful in acknowledging the complexities and ambiguities of engaging with ethically-compromised individuals. They believe MIT leadership should promote community-wide discussion of these issues, especially when MIT’s educational initiatives repeatedly stress the need to include “ethics.” Trust is a two-way street, and our colleagues also expressed the sense that top MIT leadership lacks trust in the faculty. They described the President and some others in the senior administration as “lacking respect for faculty in general” or “very cynical about faculty,” whom they often seem to regard as “selfish.” Some interviewees described MIT’s leaders as thinking that faculty do not appreciate the difficulties of management, do not grasp the big picture, nor the need to make tough decisions. We heard a widespread complaint among faculty of “initiative fatigue,” caused by a struggle to deal with a steady stream of demands associated with an endless flow of new initiatives. “The rhythm is broken. What gives way is time to think, to sit down with students.” The result is mutual resentment. Faculty worry that their core activities of research and teaching are being shortchanged, while upper administration worry about faculty selfishness and short-sightedness. In this situation, loss of trust becomes a vicious circle. Most of our interviewees expressed a strong opinion that, after the Epstein events, President Reif is not a leader who can restore trust at MIT. One person said, “He doesn’t own it.” Another said, “A lot comes back to him.” Although they had mixed assessments of Rafael Reif as a person, they believed that MIT would be better off with a new administration that could make a fresh start. (Continued below) When Rafael Reif became President of MIT in 2012, it was with the understanding that he would oversee a major capital campaign. Announced in 2016, the “Campaign for a Better World” is the fifth major capital campaign in MIT’s history, with a target of $6 billion. So far it has raised $5.5 billion. Unlike the previous fundraising campaign that began in 1997, in which two-thirds of the funds came from MIT alumni and friends, the current campaign has succeeded by casting its net much more widely. MIT hired many fundraisers who do not know MIT well, and encouraged them to raise money wherever they could find it, including from donors who do not value or understand MIT’s core mission. Our interviewees acknowledged that the senior leadership invited faculty participation at the outset of the campaign, when its priorities and goals were first established, but said proper oversight faded away as the campaign evolved. “Donors are setting the agenda,” one said. It is not clear to most faculty where the new money has been directed or how much of that direction has been determined by the donors. Others said “faculty have no idea how the campaign is being run,” and “the campaign has gone off the rails.” A major source of frustration was the perceived disconnect between a highly successful campaign and a continuing shortage of resources for core educational and departmental needs. We kept hearing the question “Where’s the $6 billion?” If the money being raised is not noticeable in departments, where is it going? Our interviewees felt that there is a tacit agenda of transforming Kendall Square into a geographically condensed version of Silicon Valley, with venture capital flowing into it from around the world. The massive building campaign that MIT has undertaken seems a physical manifestation of this ambition. The rise of multiple skyscrapers, much of which will be rental property owned by MIT and leased to industry, sends a message of scale and ambition at once overwhelming and alienating. There are many players in the development of Kendall Square, and it is reasonable that the MIT Investment Management Company be involved in that activity. However, there was concern that the MIT senior administration has become too
  19. 19. MIT: Where Now? Leigh Royden and Rosalind Williams The August 2019 revelations that the MIT Media Lab had accepted donations from convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein sparked an upheaval among MIT faculty. A closed Media Lab meeting on September 4, intended to be calming, culminated in sobbing and yelling. On September 6, an exposé of the Media Lab in The New Yorker accused MIT leaders of engaging in years of evasion and deceit to conceal the affiliation with Epstein. On September 18, at an overflowing and emotionally- charged Institute faculty meeting, MIT faculty lined up to express their collective shame, outrage, and revulsion. Like many in the MIT community, we attended this meeting and participated in the dizzying whirl of communications involving multiple participants, venues, and formats. The Epstein affair uncovered so many problems that it was difficult to tease them apart or understand the contributing factors. To better understand what was happening, we decided to conduct some informal research consisting of interviews with 11 MIT senior faculty whose judgment we value either through personal acquaintance or reputation. Seven of the 11 have served on Academic Council, and all have held leadership positions at the Institute. They represent four of MIT's five Schools. We carried out these interviews over a six-week period beginning in early October. At the outset of each conversation, we told our colleagues that we wanted to discuss current events at MIT. We were purposely vague. We were most interested in learning what was on their minds, not in imposing what was on ours. We heard a near-consensus that MIT has “lost its way”; that the faculty have had little voice in setting institutional priorities and direction; and that pursuit of “the almighty dollar” has warped MIT’s values and threatens to jeopardize its fundamental mission. What has gone wrong? In the first part of this article, we focus on the words and ideas that we heard repeatedly during our interviews. (All 11 interviewees have reviewed this report. Nine felt that this article accurately represented their views, but two felt that their perspective was not represented.) In the last two sections, we present our own analysis and recommendations; these are ours alone. A Breakdown of Trust The faculty we spoke with lamented a breakdown in trust between faculty and the senior administration. In fact, this topic was raised near the beginning of every conversation and many emphasized that the loss of trust began before and extends beyond the Epstein affair. We were told “trust has broken down”; “our sense of trust is badly shaken”; “it feels like things are falling apart”; and “our problems are much deeper than Epstein.” When we asked more about loss of trust, our colleagues commonly began by citing the decision, starting in the Media Lab and eventually communicated upwards to a “senior team,” to negotiate with Epstein over donations and other forms of support. No one felt that this was an acceptable choice. The decision was interpreted not just as a failure of policies and procedures, but more fundamentally as a lack of judgment and integrity. Particularly troubling was a perceived lack of honesty among MIT leadership to take full responsibility for these events. Our interviewees were dismayed by what they saw as long-running efforts to avoid accountability through evasion or obfuscation. Some repeated a litany of names now connected with MIT – most notably David Koch, Mohammed bin Salman, Henry Kissinger, and Stephen Schwarzman – who cause faculty moral embarrassment because their public reputations are so antithetical to MIT’s professed ideals. Our faculty colleagues felt that MIT needs to be more open and thoughtful in acknowledging the complexities and ambiguities of engaging with ethically-compromised individuals. They believe MIT leadership should promote community-wide discussion of these issues, especially when MIT’s educational initiatives repeatedly stress the need to include “ethics.” Trust is a two-way street, and our colleagues also expressed the sense that top MIT leadership lacks trust in the faculty. They described the President and some others in the senior administration as “lacking respect for faculty in general” or “very cynical about faculty,” whom they often seem to regard as “selfish.” Some interviewees described MIT’s leaders as thinking that faculty do not appreciate the difficulties of management, do not grasp the big picture, nor the need to make tough decisions. We heard a widespread complaint among faculty of “initiative fatigue,” caused by a struggle to deal with a steady stream of demands associated with an endless flow of new initiatives. “The rhythm is broken. What gives way is time to think, to sit down with students.” The result is mutual resentment. Faculty worry that their core activities of research and teaching are being shortchanged, while upper administration worry about faculty selfishness and short-sightedness. In this situation, loss of trust becomes a vicious circle. Most of our interviewees expressed a strong opinion that, after the Epstein events, President Reif is not a leader who can restore trust at MIT. One person said, “He doesn’t own it.” Another said, “A lot comes back to him.” Although they had mixed assessments of Rafael Reif as a person, they believed that MIT would be better off with a new administration that could make a fresh start. (Continued below) Jeffrey Epstein Coverup SUSAN HOCKFIELD | JEFFREY EPSTEIN | CHARLES KOCH | MIT-RUSSIA AGREEMENT HG SUSAN HOCKFIELD SKOLKOVO GREENWASHING JEFFREY EPSTEIN ABOUT ME DIVESTMENT (continued) The August 2019 revelations that the MIT Media Lab had accepted donations from convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein sparked an upheaval among MIT faculty. A closed Media Lab meeting on September 4, intended to be calming, culminated in sobbing and yelling. On September 6, an exposé of the Media Lab in The New Yorker accused MIT leaders of engaging in years of evasion and deceit to conceal the affiliation with Epstein. On September 18, at an overflowing and emotionally- charged Institute faculty meeting, MIT faculty lined up to express their collective shame, outrage, and revulsion. Like many in the MIT community, we attended this meeting and participated in the dizzying whirl of communications involving multiple participants, venues, and formats. The Epstein affair uncovered so many problems that it was difficult to tease them apart or understand the contributing factors. To better understand what was happening, we decided to conduct some informal research consisting of interviews with 11 MIT senior faculty whose judgment we value either through personal acquaintance or reputation. Seven of the 11 have served on Academic Council, and all have held leadership positions at the Institute. They represent four of MIT's five Schools. We carried out these interviews over a six-week period beginning in early October. At the outset of each conversation, we told our colleagues that we wanted to discuss current events at MIT. We were purposely vague. We were most interested in learning what was on their minds, not in imposing what was on ours. We heard a near-consensus that MIT has “lost its way”; that the faculty have had little voice in setting institutional priorities and direction; and that pursuit of “the almighty dollar” has warped MIT’s values and threatens to jeopardize its fundamental mission. What has gone wrong? In the first part of this article, we focus on the words and ideas that we heard repeatedly during our interviews. (All 11 interviewees have reviewed this report. Nine felt that this article accurately represented their views, but two felt that their perspective was not represented.) In the last two sections, we present our own analysis and recommendations; these are ours alone. A Breakdown of Trust The faculty we spoke with lamented a breakdown in trust between faculty and the senior administration. In fact, this topic was raised near the beginning of every conversation and many emphasized that the loss of trust began before and extends beyond the Epstein affair. We were told “trust has broken down”; “our sense of trust is badly shaken”; “it feels like things are falling apart”; and “our problems are much deeper than Epstein.” When we asked more about loss of trust, our colleagues commonly began by citing the decision, starting in the Media Lab and eventually communicated upwards to a “senior team,” to negotiate with Epstein over donations and other forms of support. No one felt that this was an acceptable choice. The decision was interpreted not just as a failure of policies and procedures, but more fundamentally as a lack of judgment and integrity. Particularly troubling was a perceived lack of honesty among MIT leadership to take full responsibility for these events. Our interviewees were dismayed by what they saw as long-running efforts to avoid accountability through evasion or obfuscation. Some repeated a litany of names now connected with MIT – most notably David Koch, Mohammed bin Salman, Henry Kissinger, and Stephen Schwarzman – who cause faculty moral embarrassment because their public reputations are so antithetical to MIT’s professed ideals. Our faculty colleagues felt that MIT needs to be more open and thoughtful in acknowledging the complexities and ambiguities of engaging with ethically-compromised individuals. They believe MIT leadership should promote community-wide discussion of these issues, especially when MIT’s educational initiatives repeatedly stress the need to include “ethics.” Trust is a two-way street, and our colleagues also expressed the sense that top MIT leadership lacks trust in the faculty. They described the President and some others in the senior administration as “lacking respect for faculty in general” or “very cynical about faculty,” whom they often seem to regard as “selfish.” Some interviewees described MIT’s leaders as thinking that faculty do not appreciate the difficulties of management, do not grasp the big picture, nor the need to make tough decisions. We heard a widespread complaint among faculty of “initiative fatigue,” caused by a struggle to deal with a steady stream of demands associated with an endless flow of new initiatives. “The rhythm is broken. What gives way is time to think, to sit down with students.” The result is mutual resentment. Faculty worry that their core activities of research and teaching are being shortchanged, while upper administration worry about faculty selfishness and short-sightedness. In this situation, loss of trust becomes a vicious circle. Most of our interviewees expressed a strong opinion that, after the Epstein events, President Reif is not a leader who can restore trust at MIT. One person said, “He doesn’t own it.” Another said, “A lot comes back to him.” Although they had mixed assessments of Rafael Reif as a person, they believed that MIT would be better off with a new administration that could make a fresh start. The Almighty Dollar When Rafael Reif became President of MIT in 2012, it was with the understanding that he would oversee a major capital campaign. Announced in 2016, the “Campaign for a Better World” is the fifth major capital campaign in MIT’s history, with a target of $6 billion. So far it has raised $5.5 billion. Unlike the previous fundraising campaign that began in 1997, in which two-thirds of the funds came from MIT alumni and friends, the current campaign has succeeded by casting its net much more widely. MIT hired many fundraisers who do not know MIT well, and encouraged them to raise money wherever they could find it, including from donors who do not value or understand MIT’s core mission. Our interviewees acknowledged that the senior leadership invited faculty participation at the outset of the campaign, when its priorities and goals were first established, but said proper oversight faded away as the campaign evolved. “Donors are setting the agenda,” one said. It is not clear to most faculty where the new money has been directed or how much of that direction has been determined by the donors. Others said “faculty have no idea how the campaign is being run,” and “the campaign has gone off the rails.”
  20. 20. The critical section in the article is entitled, and it concerns development of the Kendall Square area as an Innovation Hub. It is worth quoting in full. The Almighty Dollar When Rafael Reif became President of MIT in 2012, it was with the understanding that he would oversee a major capital campaign. Announced in 2016, the “Campaign for a Better World” is the fifth major capital campaign in MIT’s history, with a target of $6 billion. So far it has raised $5.5 billion. Unlike the previous fundraising campaign that began in 1997, in which two-thirds of the funds came from MIT alumni and friends, the current campaign has succeeded by casting its net much more widely. MIT hired many fundraisers who do not know MIT well, and encouraged them to raise money wherever they could find it, including from donors who do not value or understand MIT’s core mission. Our interviewees acknowledged that the senior leadership invited faculty participation at the outset of the campaign, when its priorities and goals were first established, but said proper oversight faded away as the campaign evolved. “Donors are setting the agenda,” one said. It is not clear to most faculty where the new money has been directed or how much of that direction has been determined by the donors. Others said “faculty have no idea how the campaign is being run,” and “the campaign has gone off the rails.” A major source of frustration was the perceived disconnect between a highly successful campaign and a continuing shortage of resources for core educational and departmental needs. We kept hearing the question “Where’s the $6 billion?” If the money being raised is not noticeable in departments, where is it going? Our interviewees felt that there is a tacit agenda of transforming Kendall Square into a geographically condensed version of Silicon Valley, with venture capital flowing into it from around the world. The massive building campaign that MIT has undertaken seems a physical manifestation of this ambition. The rise of multiple skyscrapers, much of which will be rental property owned by MIT and leased to industry, sends a message of scale and ambition at once overwhelming and alienating. There are many players in the development of Kendall Square, and it is reasonable that the MIT Investment Management Company be involved in that activity. However, there was concern that the MIT senior administration has become too heavily invested in MIT’s business and real estate activities in Kendall Square and that this mission dominates the senior administration’s thinking and decision-making. Faculty worry that the Institute’s core mission of academic excellence and education is being left behind. Several of our interviewees were worried about how highly leveraged MIT may have become as a result of its recent expansion. Our interviewees were concerned about the degree to which MIT, though legally a non-profit, is being conceptualized as a business. Many gave examples from the language of the leadership, described as “corporate-speak” or “boardroom culture.” Many pointed to the corporate-style measures of success cited by senior leadership: growth of endowment, growth of international commitments, and constant competition of MIT with peer institutions (above all Stanford) using metrics like endowment dollars per faculty member and admissions yield. Our faculty colleagues repeatedly wondered if these metrics and goals are appropriate or realistic for MIT. The faculty members we interviewed repeatedly told us that money-making is becoming MIT’s main institutional goal. “It’s the money.” “Money drives everything.” While the stated campaign goal may be “a better world,” in practice its goal is to raise $6 billion – or more, because the campaign creates a vicious circle with the need to raise ever more money. Stephen Schwarzman’s gift is a prime example. His donation of $350 million is starter money for the College of Computing, which, faculty are told, needs $1.1 billion to be up and running. His generous gift now commits MIT to raising another $750 million. It’s oil, not money Because the faculty authors and interviewees never consider oil, they simplify what is going here as an issue of money. And it is certainly that. But it is primarily fossil fuels. It isn’t that MIT has been conceptualized as a business.” MIT has been transformed into a fossil fuel business. If it’s good for Schlumberger, then it’s good for MIT. Two Silicon Valleys The Executive Committee By L. Rafael Reif. | October 21, 2015 Page 5
  21. 21. GETTING OUT OF DODGE Greg Morgan And do forth. New York Times The 61-page report, based on dozens of interviews and a review of more than 610,000 emails and documents, cleared others of wrongdoing, including the university’s president, L. Rafael Reif. Boston Globe “…The report cleared Massachusetts Institute of Technology president L. Rafael Reif, who investigators said had no involvement in approving the gifts.” Washington Post ”The report found that MIT President L. Rafael Reif did not know the school was accepting gifts from an accused pedophile and convicted sex offender.” Nature “MIT president Rafael Reif did not know that the university was accepting money from Epstein while it was taking place, the report concluded, but three senior administrators knew about the donations and drew up an “informal framework” in 2013 to accept money from Epstein, fully aware of his criminal record. Times of Israel MIT President L. Rafael Reif, who was largely cleared in the report, called the findings “a sharp reminder of human fallibility and its consequences.” CNN Reif, the MIT president, "was not aware that (MIT) was accepting donations from a convicted sex offender and accused pedophile, and had no role in approving MIT's acceptance of the donations," the report said. Senior Vice President and Corporation Secretary Suzanne Glassburn “A culture in which whistleblowing is accepted, effective, and safe: Goodwin Procter’s report makes clear that various Media Lab and central administration employees were unsuccessful in their efforts to warn academic and administrative leaders against taking Epstein’s donations. Jeffrey Epstein Coverup SUSAN HOCKFIELD | JEFFREY EPSTEIN | CHARLES KOCH | MIT-RUSSIA AGREEMENT HG SUSAN HOCKFIELD SKOLKOVO GREENWASHING JEFFREY EPSTEIN ABOUT ME DIVESTMENT The Jeffrey Epstein Scandal The Power of Israel Ruiz. Israel Ruiz was one of the most powerful people in MIT history and absolutely no one knew who he was. That’s how MIT lawyers who able to fabricate the absurdity that no one did anything wrong regarding Jeffrey Epstein because no guidelines were in place to guide how one handles donations from a pedophile. JE MIT Corporation
  22. 22. Jeffrey Epstein
  23. 23. John Deutch
  24. 24. Susan Hockfield The Institute is now moving forward… She makes it absolutely clear that this is happening independently of her. She is the president. …a new set of ambitious goals Why doesn’t she just say what they are? …powerful momentum [makes this a good moment to leave] Momentum is a reason for people to stay, not leave. MIT has begun the crucial work of planning for a significant new fundraising campaign. This is the critical giveaway. MIT is opening its doors to funding from the fossil fuel industry. The very first thing that Rafael Reif did after Susan Hockfield announced that she was stepping down, was to appoint Maria Zuber to gut MIT’s environmental research plan and create a plan acceptable to fossil fuel funding. He was fairly certain he would be elected president but not certain, so he took an incredible risk to send Maria Zuber from the present into the future, as it were, so that her work would be a fait accompli for the next administration, whoever it was.
  25. 25. Boston Globe JE FNL Skolkovo MZ Divestment ERC SH MIT Corporation
  26. 26. The Engine
  27. 27. ERC
  28. 28. Maria Zuber
  29. 29. Divestment “…we find that the best way for MIT to accelerate action on the climate challenge—in science, in technology, in policy and in the education of our students—is active engagement with organizations of many kinds.” — L. Rafael Reif “The Question of Divestment” (2015)
  30. 30. This is the top heading And this is the text for this sidebar comment on this page. April 17, 2012 To the members of the MIT community, I am pleased to accept the final report of the Environmental Research Council (ERC), Implementing the MIT Global Environment Initiative. The report incorporates input received from a forum held December 15, 2011 that presented results of the draft report and the inputs from a subsequent comment period. I thank the ERC and in particular its Chair, Professor Dara Entekhabi, for producing a compelling vision of MIT's role in advancing sustainability and in addressing pressing environmental issues. I commend the ERC for identifying strategic research themes that transcend disciplinary boundaries and which integrate scientific understanding, engineering solutions, and social research to synthesize new approaches to the world's environmental challenges. The report also describes a portfolio of current and new educational offerings, including a new undergraduate minor in Environment and Sustainability. The video of the recent forum on Environmental Research can be viewed at http://techtv.mit.edu/collections/erc and the final ERC report can be accessed here. I have asked Professor John H. Lienhard V and Professor Maria T. Zuber to co-lead a Global Environment Initiative (GEI) planning group to prepare a proposal for execution for consideration by the next administration. They will focus on plans for resource development and coordination of potential future activities across the Institute. The pressures on vital environmental systems and questions about their sustainability have profound implications for human welfare. The goals outlined in the ERC report define important opportunities for research and education on one of the most pressing challenges facing humanity today. Sincerely, L. Rafael Reif, Provost Maseeh Professor of Emerging Technology
  31. 31. POSTJUNE 27, 2020 Evaluating Dr. Maria Zuber’s Response to MIT Divest’s Information Request MIT Divest is grateful for Dr. Zuber’s response to the information request(link is external) especially given the upheaval on campus this spring when COVID-19 forced students, faculty, staff, researchers, and administrators off campus. Dr. Zuber and her team have been busy in developing the guidelines and scenarios to bring research back on campus, and MIT Divest is appreciative of the work being done towards this goal. MIT Divest has spent the last few weeks going over Dr. Zuber’s response to the inquiry, and wanted to share thoughts regarding the answers that Dr. Zuber provided. Although we are pleased that some partnerships with fossil fuel companies have driven sustainability-oriented research, we are extremely disappointed to see that MIT’s partnerships have not created important change regarding climate policy and disinformation. It is clear that MIT has not done well in holding fossil fuel companies accountable for their anti-climate lobbying, greenwashing, climate disinformation campaigns, and other climate policy mechanisms. At the end of the day, MIT Divest believes that divestment holds these companies accountable and ensures that MIT, as a leader in science and technology, does not stand complicit with the behaviors of fossil fuel companies. MIT Divest’s response is as follows: Part 1 MIT Divest asked for more information regarding the definition and goals of engagement as outlined in the 2015 Climate Action Plan. As an institute of higher education, we must critically and thoroughly review the major tenets of the 2015 Climate Action Plan in order to pursue effective methods for contributing to climate solutions. It is absolutely necessary to look towards future solutions, but it is also important to understand the successes and missteps of our previous attempts. Regarding MIT’s engagement in policy and government, we recognize that MIT is not equipped to engage in political lobbying at a large scale. As Dr. Zuber indicates, our strengths as a university favor research and scientific pursuits above political advocacy. However, this does not excuse us from using these competencies selectively. The MIT Washington Office effectively lobbies for research and university funding, as these issues are more directly related to MIT’s activity. However, climate change is an issue that is pressing, existential, and time-sensitive. This is agreed on by an overwhelming majority of the scientific community, including many of MIT’s greatest climate scientists. Our political activity must reflect the urgency of climate change, and reject the politicization of the issue. We must advocate based on the science, as the clock continues to tick. The last thing we would want is for MIT’s voice to be reduced to partisan noise, as Dr. Zuber stated. MIT Divest argues that this practice of remaining largely detached from political discussion affords MIT the ability to amplify our voice on the issues that are of extreme importance. Our relative infrequency of political commentary suggests that the issues that we do politically engage with require swift and decisive action. Climate change should be one of these issues. In looking at MIT’s engagement with both government and industry partners, we have observed benefits in the form of grants, partnerships, and contracts among other things. We agree with Dr. Zuber that these are positive, forward-oriented methods of helping solve the climate problem, and have resulted in good research developments. However, we must also recognize the efforts that exist to push against progress and eventual implementation of this progress. MIT has stated its stance on lobbying and disinformation campaigns used to exploit political levers against climate policy. As an institute, we say that we stand against these actions, but it is not clear that our actions reflect this stance. Our engagement strategy must devote appropriate effort to eliminating these campaigns, and holding fossil fuel companies accountable for their actions. Otherwise, we ignore unfortunate political realities that exist in part due to lobbying and disinformation from the fossil fuel industry. Research solutions to climate change cannot be implemented at large scale if not supported adequately by government policy. We must directly address the politics at play in order to make the most of these efforts. In the bigger picture, we understand the engagement strategy to be a way for MIT to leverage its position in the world to maximize the capacity of knowledge it can put out. MIT Divest agrees, and thinks MIT has great potential to lead in the development and dissemination of these solutions for the world to follow. MIT Divest also believes that one of the most effective forms of leadership is by example. The goal of a 32% reduction in campus greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 set in the 2015 Climate Action Plan falls short of the decisive leadership we expect of MIT. While it is important to research solutions that can be implemented worldwide, it is also important to show the world that we are taking the matter seriously as well. It is important to show that we are doing our part to directly reduce our contribution to climate change. This means aggressively reducing our carbon footprint, denouncing acts that run counter to fact- based science, and using our position to take public action against the entities involved in these campaigns. While it is a considerable physical challenge to reduce our carbon emissions while escalating research efforts, we must continue to pride ourselves on solving tough problems creatively for the right reasons. We must be more aggressive in our understanding and action to minimize MIT’s direct impact on perpetuating the climate issue. Our engagement strategy, as Dr. Zuber indiciates, focuses on partnering with groups to find and implement climate solutions. It is valuable to continue in these efforts with the government and other entities. It is imperative that we also lead the world by working on what we can do on campus to help, and by stating and acting on the belief that it is unacceptable to distort scientific fact on climate change. No, we cannot solve climate problems on our own, but we also cannot continue to stunt global progress by allowing organizations set on dragging their feet on climate to remain unchecked. Part 2 In this section of the document request, MIT Divest asked for information on MIT’s efforts to engage with the fossil fuel industry and the results of those efforts. While MIT does not track these meetings, Dr. Zuber asserts that MIT has told fossil fuel companies that it disapproves of anti-climate lobbying and disinformation practices and will not allow companies to use their relationships with us for greenwashing. Although MIT Divest recognizes the importance of personal meetings and their impact, the lack of transparency around these meetings makes it impossible to claim that MIT systematically holds these companies accountable. This is especially troubling given how engagement was highlighted as an alternative to divestment in the 2015-20 climate action plan. Claiming to have held these meetings and letting our disapproval be known to fossil fuel companies is not enough without the proper oversight to hold both MIT and fossil fuel companies accountable. Without any metrics on either efforts for engagement or the outcomes of engagement, we are told to trust that fossil fuel companies act in good faith in meetings with MIT, but decades of disinformation and lobbying show this cannot be assumed. It is important that our community has the information to hold MIT to a high standard and this cannot happen if there is no standard. MIT has shown itself to be complacent in companies using us to protect themselves and deceive the public. All in all, without metrics or standards to hold both MIT and fossil fuel companies to, there is no proof that these meetings effect any concrete change. The same issue arises when we look into greenwashing as well. It is not adequate to say that MIT will not allow companies to greenwash their reputation through their relationships with us. It is also not true. Just this past year, MIT announced the renaming of a prominent lecture hall(link is external) in its Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences (EAPS) building to Shell Auditorium. MIT only backed down after the EAPS department and many students expressed their outrage over the name change and hosted a teach-in on greenwashing(link is external) and climate denial in response. Because of community organizing, the name is now undetermined and will be decided by a naming contest. The fact that it took so much resistance to change Shell Auditorium’s name shows that the MIT administration does not think seriously about who it chooses to represent and the potential consequences of those associations. MIT simply refusing to “allow” greenwashing could seem like an empty gesture that allows the Institute to avoid responsibility for its relationships with these companies. In fact, Exxon explicitly used MIT’s name(link is external) to cover itself in October 2015, just days after the release of the 2015 Climate Action Plan. Following reports that Exxon spread doubt about climate change, Exxon’s VP of government and public affairs said, “The facts are that we identified the potential risks of climate change and have taken the issue very seriously. We embarked on decades of research in collaboration with many parties, including the Department of Energy, leading academic institutions such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University and others to advance climate science.” In a report on Exxon’s greenwashing, Dr. Zuber admits that by MIT’s plan of engaging with fossil fuel companies, we are putting our “reputation on the line.” MIT has, to the best of MIT Divest’s knowledge, never publicly condemned Exxon Mobil’s greenwashing or disinformation. MIT Divest contends that if one party does not make their stance public, the other party gets to determine the nature of that relationship. Divestment would instead bring MIT’s reputation in line with our values. Dr. Zuber informs us that the best way that MIT can engage with these companies and make change in the world is through funding and research. MIT Divest believes that while research is certainly important, MIT needs to shift to a broader view on climate action. We cannot wait for technology to save us in the future if we do not create the necessary social and political conditions for it right now. Without policy and social shifts, research cannot be successfully implemented. For as long as anti-climate lobbying and disinformation campaigns run by many fossil fuel companies continue, these shifts will not come. The University of Dayton Ohio divested in 2014 and found that their annual sponsored research money still increased(link is external) afterwards, suggesting that divestment did not negatively impact research funding. Surveys that MIT Divest sent out to the UMass and University of California systems imply that there has been no loss of funds for research from fossil fuel companies after divestment. Additionally, Brown(link is external), Oxford(link is external), Georgetown(link is external) and many other research universities have divested from the fossil fuel industry recently, citing financial risk and nonalignment with university values. As concrete results of their informal meetings, Dr. Zuber points to the company Eni focusing more on decarbonization and some fossil fuel companies leaving the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which pushes for anti-climate legislation. While true, these results are not enough. Any change can be considered “aggressive” compared to most fossil fuel companies’ past policies. Even Eni, the supermajor oil company that invested in MIT-based fusion and decarbonization, invested around 80% of its capital expenditures in exploration and production(link is external) in 2019. Decarbonization, circular economy, and renewables represented only 5% of that overall budget. Eni’s commitment to decarbonization is especially questionable considering they were fined 5 million euros for lying(link is external) that their diesel was environmentally friendly in an egregious act of greenwashing. This was in January 2020, despite Eni being considered one of the most forward thinkers in the oil and gas industry. Furthermore, Dr. Zuber suggests that companies leaving ALEC and Eni investing more in decarbonization could potentially be attributed to MIT, but she never explains how MIT influenced these companies. This precisely demonstrates the unacceptable lack of accountability and transparency under our current model of engagement. Besides meeting with fossil fuel companies, MIT Divest also asked about shareholder engagement and resolutions as a channel to bring about positive change and accountability. Dr. Zuber informed us that MIT has not done anything with regards to shareholder resolutions, meaning that as an investor, MIT has not engaged with its investments whatsoever. A growing list of validators like the UC System, and the weak financial performance of the fossil sector indicate divestment may even be a preferable financial decision (see the upcoming MIT Divest’s Financial Case for Divestment). Fossil companies are running into long-term growth constraints, low oil prices, and may be faced with tough regulatory conditions for many years to come. If we are not conducting shareholder engagement, and fossil fuel investments fail to perform well, divestment seems to be the preferable option. It is unacceptable to MIT Divest that in the last climate action plan, MIT decided on the path of engagement but has failed to curb disinformation and anti-climate lobbying. It is not enough to express vague disapproval in public and behind closed doors. Part 3: As indicated by the original document request, MIT Divest was looking for more specifics regarding the amount MIT was invested in fossil fuel companies. Dr. Zuber acknowledging that most of these investments lie in commingled funds does not add anything to overall knowledge regarding the amount of money investment in these companies. MIT Divest understands that for privacy or confidentiality reasons, this number may not be explicit, but providing a general benchmark would allow clearer assessment about how divestment would affect the endowment. Our initial financial research has suggested that divestment does not in fact affect our endowment significantly, but this is based on assumptions rather than known facts about the endowment. We would welcome more specificity associated with those numbers. The numbers described by Dr. Zuber regarding the amount of money going into research and education at MIT were incredibly useful in demonstrating that from a research standpoint, engagement has been working in providing numerous opportunities for students, faculty, and other research staff to engage in sustainability related projects, classes, and events. MIT Divest does not seek to inhibit research funding received from fossil fuel companies assuming that this research goes towards sustainability efforts and is not being used to greenwash these companies. In many ways, the infrastructure provided by these companies allows for strong technological partnerships with institutions like MIT. However, the question as to whether or not any research was being conducted towards fossil fuel extraction was not fully answered. MIT Divest has reason to believe that some of the research being done at MIT is going directly towards innovating fossil fuel extraction. Although we are not actively campaigning for removing this type of research, the organization does frown upon any research going towards the very practices the institution recognizes as an existential threat. Summary MIT Divest believes that divestment at MIT will have serious effects on the power of fossil fuel companies due to the growing divestment movement and MIT’s influence in the science and technology world. Divestment at MIT must be complemented with other forms of climate action, including stopping fossil fuel extraction research, creating a more sustainable campus, and increasing MIT’s role in creating policy and stopping anti-climate lobbying and disinformation. Certainly, Dr. Zuber’s response showed how research has been positively impacted by engagement, but as long as fossil fuel companies continue to greenwash themselves, sponsor disinformation campaigns, and use their political strength to prevent significant change, MIT’s research and educational opportunities are futile. MIT’s failure to hold fossil fuel companies accountable by choosing engagement over divestment five years ago means that the school needs to reevaluate its partnerships and its complicity in the fossil fuel industry’s behavior. It is time to divest. MIT Divest Responds to Maria Zuber By MIT Divest | October 21, 2015
  32. 32. Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, July 2001, page 47 Special Report Why Did Former CIA Director John Deutch Endanger America’s Most Vital Secrets? By Andrew I. Killgore “...CIA Director George Tenet told Congress he could not be sure the information on Deutch’s computer had been secure... CBS News reported [Deutch] e-mailed a Russian scientist on his AOL account.” —Reuter’s report in the 2/4/00 Gulf News “We have asked him to appear [before the Senate Intelligence Committee], we hope he will....This is strange behavior, very suspicious. It’s unprecedented to my knowledge.” —Sen. Richard Shelby, chairman, Senate Intelligence Committee, quoted in an AP story in the International Herald Tribune, Feb. 2/5-6/00 John Deutch, born in Belgium in 1938, was brought to the United States as a young boy. He studied chemistry, earned a doctorate in his specialty at M.I.T., became a professor there and eventually won the chair of the department of chemistry. Obviously a brilliant professor, Deutch did not come to public notice, as measured in mainline media attention, until 1994, when then-Secretary of Defense William Perry elevated Deutch from assistant secretary—to which he had been appointed in 1993—to deputy secretary of defense. In May 1995 Dr. Deutch moved from his number-two job at the Department of Defense to the top position of director of the Central Intelligence Agency, America’s spy agency. He held the directorship until he resigned in December 1996. Deutch’s brilliance of mind did not enhance his reputation as CIA director. John Millis, a former CIA operations officer and chief staffer at the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, was quoted in the Feb. 18, 2000 issue of The Washington Post as saying Deutch was “the worst CIA director ever.” Millis thought the miscast Deutch also had earned the second-worst and third-worst rankings. But it is the unloved John Deutch’s unfathomable side that excites the most compelling interest. Both at the Department of Defense and at the Central Intelligence Agency, he grossly violated rules for the protection of America’s secrets, including “special access programs” so secret that officials privy to them are authorized to lie to keep them from becoming public. Most such programs are kept secret from the CIA and only disclosed to the Pentagon’s top three or four officials. Deutch was briefed on many of these programs both when he was at the Defense Department and at the CIA, according to the Washington Times of Feb. 17, 2000. Deutch’s open computer—loaded with the most carefully protected secrets—was a target for any computer hacker. That explains CIA Director George Tenet’s statement to Congress, quoted above, that he could not be sure that information on Deutch’s computer was secure. U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Shelby, also quoted above, was deeply suspicious of Deutch’s motives in leaving U.S. secrets open for grabbing. Shelby wanted Deutch before his committee, but whether Deutch ever appeared is doubtful. If he did, the session was in camera and the proceedings have not been published. Deutch may have been so blindly arrogant that he treated the laws on security protection as applying to others, but not to himself. This is the view of a retired CIA officer who is a friend of the writer. Or, his gross defiance of the rules may have stemmed from some tangle of perversities that even Deutch did not understand. Finally, he may have been a quiet but passionate Zionist seeking to help Israel, where he has relatives. His sophisticated excuse, if he had ever had to answer questions under oath, was that he was simply careless. Deutch may well have been tried for his transgressions, and some cracking of the Deutch enigma might have been possible. But former President Bill Clinton took away that possibility when he pardoned Deutch on the last day of his presidency. Why? Andrew I. Killgore is the publisher of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. Why did John Deutch By L. Rafael Reif. | October 21, 2015 Page 5
  33. 33. Skolkovo
  34. 34. Rafael Reif Former president Skolkovo Institute is a hydrocarbon research center funded by Russian oil oligarchs to solve technical challenges associated with shale and Arctic oil exploration and production, and to maintain fossil fuel monopoly and shut out any possibility of renewable energy.* Subjects Basic background information Maria Zuber Former president Skolkovo Institute is a hydrocarbon research center funded by Russian oil oligarchs to solve technical challenges associated with shale and Arctic oil exploration and production, and to maintain fossil fuel monopoly and shut out any possibility of renewable energy.* Israel Ruiz Former president Skolkovo Institute is a hydrocarbon research center funded by Russian oil oligarchs to solve technical challenges associated with shale and Arctic oil exploration and production, and to maintain fossil fuel monopoly and shut out any possibility of renewable energy.* Steve Brandt Executive Director, MIT News Office Skolkovo Institute is a hydrocarbon research center funded by Russian oil oligarchs to solve technical challenges associated with shale and Arctic oil exploration and production, and to maintain fossil fuel monopoly and shut out any possibility of renewable energy.*
  35. 35. Slide 1 Mission Accomplished or Getting out of Dodge? Vladimir Putin and Skolkovo Foundation Chairman Viktor Vekselberg. Former MIT President Susan Hockfield (2005-2012) “The Institute is now moving forward on a new set of ambitious goals, and powerful momentum we have built makes this an opportune moment for a Susan Hockfield, resigning as president 3 months after MIT signs a $300 million agreement with Russia to create a hydrocarbon research center in Moscow.
  36. 36. Executive Summary to the Report of the MIT Environmental Research Council April 2012 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Implementing the MIT Global Environment Initiative ! ! 1" !!Report!of!the!MIT!Global!Environment!Initiative!Planning!Group! " John"H."Lienhard"V" Samuel"C."Collins"Professor"of"Mechanical"Engineering" " Maria"T."Zuber" E.A."Griswold"Professor"of"Geophysics" " November"12,"2012" " " Charge!from!Provost!Reif! The!Global!Environment!Initiative!Planning!Group!is!charged!to!connect!MIT's!departmental!and! faculty!efforts!and!needs!to!the!constituencies!that!could!provide!resources!to!this!initiative,! including!donors,!research!sponsors,!ILP!companies,!and!others!as!needed!and!appropriate.!! ! These!connections!should!be!developed!through!discussion!with!MIT!department!heads!and!faculty,! and!through!discussion!with!MIT!resource!development!personnel,!ILP!leadership!and!alumni.!!As! part!of!the!process,!the!Planning!Group!should!pursue!a!synergistic!relationship!with!MITEI.! ! The!Planning!Group!should!also!lay!out!a!clear!name,!mission!description,!and!plan!of!execution!for! the!activity!that!could!be!presented!to!the!new!leadership!of!MIT.!!This!would!ideally!be!concise!and! actionable.! " Brief!Review!of!Previous!Efforts" Interest!in!study!of!the!environment!has!a!long!history!at!MIT,!with!the!first!formal!focus!at!the! InstituteClevel!coming!together!in!2001!under!the!auspices!of!the!Laboratory!for!Energy!and!the! Environment!(LFEE),!led!by!Professor!David!Marks.!!The!LFEE!provided!a!forum!for!individuals!to! share!interests!in!research!and!education!and!was!the!first!group!to!promote!the!study!of! sustainability!at!the!Institute.!!The!LFEE!provided!the!foundation!for!the!diversity!of!multiC disciplinary!study!of!the!environment!at!both!large!and!local!scales.!!! ! Grassroots!faculty!interest!in!expanding!the!scope!of!activities!related!to!the!environment!led!to!the! appointment,!by!Provost!Reif!in!2007,!of!the!Committee!to!Assess!Environmental!Activities!at!MIT,! chaired!by!Professor!Maria!Zuber.!!This!committee!issued!its!report1,!aka!The!Zuber!Report,!in! September!2007.!The!report!identified!significant!interest!in!research!and!education!on!the! environment!by!faculty,!research!staff!and!students!and!recommended!an!InstituteCwide!effort!to! raise!the!profile!both!within!and!outside!the!Institute!of!the!extensive!ongoing!work!already! underway.!!! ! In!2008,!an!Environmental!Research!Council!(ERC),!chaired!by!Professor!Dara!Entekhabi,!was! appointed!by!Provost!Reif!to!develop!an!implementation!plan!for!the!Zuber!Report.!!To!broaden!the! input!into!the!process,!the!ERC!was!reconstituted!in!2010,!again!under!the!leadership!of!Professor! Entekhabi;!and!an!Energy!Environment!Board,!coCchaired!by!Professors!Ernest!Moniz!and!Andrew! Whittle,!was!convened!in!order!to!coordinate!environmental!activities!with!the!MIT!Energy!Initiative! (MITEI).!!The!ERC!Report2,!which!was!released!in!April!2012,!presented!an!outstanding!and!detailed! research!agenda!that!highlighted!global–scale!environmental!problems!of!societal!importance.!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1!http://orgchart.mit.edu/node/6/letters_to_community/reportCcommitteeCassessCenvironmentalC activitiesCmit! 2!http://web.mit.edu/ercCreport/!
  37. 37. February 16, 2012 To the Members of the MIT Community: I write to share with you my decision to step down from the presidency of MIT. Over the past seven years, working together we have accomplished far more than I set out to do. The Institute is now moving forward on a new set of ambitious goals, and I have concluded that the powerful momentum we have built makes this an opportune moment for a leadership transition. I came to MIT in December 2004 with a profound sense of the privilege and the responsibility of the president’s role. But nothing could have prepared me for this remarkable community of creative minds. Together, we have made tremendous progress in dozens of ways, strengthening MIT’s foundations and setting our sights for the future. We are designing the policy, technology and education required to address the global need for sustainable energy. We have accelerated MIT’s ability to synthesize the strengths of science and engineering to fight disease and to invent new powers of computation. We have expanded the Institute’s global connections. We are charting a course to a new future for American manufacturing. We have also built a framework for the future of our campus and neighborhood, fortified the Institute’s financial structures, strengthened MIT’s culture of inclusion and increased the number of undergraduates we can educate. With the recent introduction of MITx, we are changing the conversation around affordability, access and excellence in higher education. Through last year’s celebration of MIT’s Sesquicentennial, our community emerged reenergized and refocused on our mission of service to the nation and the world. And we achieved all this and more while steering the Institute through the worst global financial crisis since the Great Depression. The momentum of all that we have accomplished has tempted me to stay on to see our many efforts bear their full fruit. But to support our ambitious goals for the future, MIT has begun the crucial work of planning for a significant new fundraising campaign. A campaign on this scale will require the full focus and sustained attention of the Institute’s president over many years. I have concluded that it would be best for the Institute to begin this next chapter with new leadership. Presidential searches generally take time; I will serve until my successor is selected by the MIT Corporation and is ready to assume the role. I look forward to continuing to be a member of the MIT faculty. The coming months will offer many opportunities to reflect on our work together, but for now, let me simply thank the faculty, students, staff, alumni and friends of MIT who have given of themselves to advance the mission of MIT. While I expect new intellectual adventures ahead, nothing will compare to the exhilaration of the world-changing accomplishments that we produced together. Most sincerely, Susan Hockfield Looking to the Future Susan Hockfield | February 16, 2012 Page 5

×