In reversing divestment, Princeton chooses moral cowardice

In 2022, Princeton divested from publicly-traded fossil fuel companies. On Monday, it reversed that decision and discontinued its “voluntary divestment from all publicly traded oil and gas companies,” thereby choosing to abandon its commitment to the climate.

The University should be ashamed of itself.

The reversal comes at a time of immense peril for the climate, and consequently for human life: This month, heatwaves across the world, from Europe to India to the United States, have shattered temperature records and claimed at least hundreds of lives.

In this perilous hour, Princeton has chosen the oil billionaires, fossil fuel conglomerates, and climate-destroying special interests, pursuing marginal endowment gains by means of the destruction of the very planet it claims to value. In short, Princeton has chosen oil futures over our future.

In his letter announcing the decision, President of the Princeton University Investment Company (PRINCO) Vincent Tuohey writes that he has been thinking about “the continuing alignment of PRINCO’s own operations with the University’s mission and strategic goals, among them a commitment to climate sustainability.” In the same letter, he abandons that commitment. Tuohey neglects his responsibility to Princeton’s values and fails to act with the urgency the moment demands.

Tuohey did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The very leaders who are complicit in this decision are the same ones who consistently remind us about the University’s values and the perpetual importance of adhering to them. Even when the political headwinds push back, Princeton remains a place that, in the words of University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 himself, “must stand boldly for the freedoms and principles that define this and other great universities.”

Tuohey’s predecessor Andrew Golden likewise remarked in 2023, “If the University community says that this is a moral obligation that we have, we should do it, even if it costs money.” (And fossil fuel divestment does not, in fact, cost money: It is not only the environmentally sustainable option, but the financially sustainable one, too.) Golden’s fundamental point stands: “Our principles should not be for sale.”

On Monday, Princeton sold its principles. The University now must buy them back.

For starters, Vincent Tuohey has got to go. Someone who is willing to so blatantly disregard the stated principles and values of the University has no place managing its endowment. Tuohey should step down or be removed from his post.

But this moral rot does not begin with Tuohey and will not end with his departure. Eisgruber and the Board of Trustees must step up to ensure that Princeton’s decisions are in line with its supposed commitment to sustainability. That includes not just complete divestment from fossil fuels, but also a further investment into climate research — the same research Tuohey cites as an area for which resources are “critical” amid “financial strain” — threatened by the Trump administration’s anti-science agenda. Claims to institutionally value and intellectually pursue sustainability are meaningless when the University is entwined with corporations that ceaselessly undermine those goals.

As a means to combat those corporations, divestment works not as a financial bludgeon but as a political tool. Coordinated efforts toward divestment across an industry like higher education might not dent a company’s financial capital or reduce its stock price, but can damage those companies’ political capital: The move towards divestment represents a collective rejection of the unsustainable practices these companies continue to employ.

A divestment reversal, in turn, forsakes that institutional stand, which had great symbolic authority. It creates more political space for fossil fuel companies to operate unchecked, as they have proven themselves more than willing to do. Shamefully, Princeton becomes the first university in the United States to publicly renege on fossil fuel divestment. Given its prominence as a leader in higher education, it may not be the last.

The decision to roll back divestment is part of a larger moral capitulation to the Trump administration and the fossil fuel companies that prop it up. At the same time that federal funding cuts have devastated Princeton’s research enterprise, the University now projects that endowment returns will be lower — thereby squeezing the budget from both sides. Eisgruber wrote in February that cutting the budget will “add to Princeton’s capacity to deal with further policy challenges or economic headwinds that may arise.” But Princeton has demonstrated, in the Trump era, that when money gets tight, it is willing to thoroughly abandon its commitments — to the climate, to its constituents, to the community — in service of profit and institutional self-preservation.

While its principles erode under the pressure of increasing financial desperation, Princeton continues to engage in the same greenwashing behaviors it always has, plastering the metaphorical “Princeton builds climate action” sign over the climate-destroying behaviors it undertakes. In the same breath as the divestment reversal, Tuohey says, “we are setting a holistic goal for a net-zero endowment by 2046.”

That’s not good enough. 2046 is already a deplorably late target year for a net-zero endowment, but Tuohey further qualifies this target and dodges accountability by stating that it remains “contingent on sustained U.S. government policies that encourage reduced emissions.”

Princeton can achieve a net-zero endowment contingent on nothing but the moral fortitude of its leaders. It is unfortunate they appear to have none.

As the world burns, Princeton will continue to be confronted with the eternal question: Which side are you on? With this decision, the University demonstrates that it remains squarely on the side of the climate deniers, the oil profiteers, the pipelines, the profits, and everyone but the people.

We need, at base, a more holistic commitment to a Princeton “in the service of humanity.” With the climate at the precipice and the U.S. president holding it over the edge, this moment demands nothing less than moral courage from our leaders.

Isaac Barsoum’s moral fortitude is supposed to be less well-developed than that of his elders, but he doesn’t get that luxury. He is a junior Politics major and associate Opinion editor from Charlotte, N.C. who can be reached at itbarsoum[at]princeton.edu.