Pointing out the flaws in one's argument

Yesterday I was with a group of financial officers for independent colleges from Washington, Oregon and California who meet periodically to discuss common problems and issues. They spent a couple of hours discussing a series of initiatives related to energy use. They heard first from the director of a group called Second Nature, which has a long time commitment to a wide range of environmental causes. I've heard Cortese before and he tends to be a bit of an ideologue. His (long) speech was followed by two more interesting ones. The first by an investment banker who is committed to reducing carbon usage among his clients. He spent about 20 minutes explaining a half dozen ways that campuses could begin to think about how to reduce their energy usage. All of what he said was very practical. I thought some of the suggestions were silly but many made a good deal of sense.

There is a good deal of moral imperative here which I think is both inappropriate and destructive. Cass Sunnstein, from the University of Chicago Law School, pointed out in a recent Econtalk podcast that there were good reasons why the US moved quickly to stop one set of emissions (during the Reagan Administration) and yet on a bipartisan basis refused to ratify Kyoto. The economics, both the current and long term benefit to cost ratios were positive for the changes we made on aerosols but not on the protocols made in Kyoto. In one sense the political statements offered by Cortese in his campus crusade can be contrasted with the more measured and focused issues raised by the investment banker.

The final set of presentations was from four of the CFOs of these campuses who responded to an initiative of one of Cortese's groups called the American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment. The site for this initiative says that colleges should join into the group's efforts because "Standing on the sidelines poses a great risk to the reputation of Higher Education. In fact, Higher Education faces a great risk if it fails to lead the effort to restabilize the climate to a point where we have a chance of accommodating 9 billion people and meeting their basic needs." Two of the four had signed on to the initiative and they discussed how the campus had decided to sign on. The other two did not. I was especially interested in the responses for the campuses who did not. In these kind of efforts, on most campuses, it is a very easy thing to sign the pledge. But these two, both campuses known for their liberal students, chose not to. CFO #1 raised two concerns. First, he used Guidestar (which is a service by which you can find the most recent IRS filing of any charity in the country) which showed that among Cortese's two charities the total raised an expended was less than $250,000. The CFO said why should colleges commit their resources to an entity like this which is so significantly underfinanced. He made a second and more important point. His college has made a substantial commitment to wise environmental choices. Indeed, they have even produced an informative brochure about all their efforts. He asked a very good question, why should his campus substitute the priorities of Cortese's group for those that the campus itself developed. That is a good question.

The second CFO said his college was still going through the decision process of trying to figure out whether they would sign on to the effort. But he gave the strong impression, that after the process was completed that it was unlikely they would. He then said something which every college in the country should use as a guideline for these kinds of campaigns. He said his college will not participate in a political campaign (and Cortese's effort is clearly a political campaign) unless it is in full conformity with the college mission. His college has a well established tradition of discussion and debate on campus. But a fundamental principle which many campuses have forgotten, is that campuses should be places of debate and discussion not advocacy. His campus has not forgotten.

There are plenty of good reasons why campuses should be careful about their energy use - regardless of one's position on global warming - but that should not require them to band together to commit to someone else's crafted agenda. Those two CFOs offered a good guide for every campus in the country. Even for those 400+ campuses who knee-jerked onto Cortese's latest campaign.