Taking a multidisciplinary approach in the constructivist tradition, this Article combines discourse analysis, a survey, and legal analysis in an exploration of the fossil fuel divestment campaigns at Harvard and Stanford. The legal analysis identifies the fiduciary framework through which divestment decisions must be made, while the survey and discourse analysis give insight into whether campaigners exhibit a sophisticated approach to that framework. Specifically, this Article argues that because fiduciary law and the rules governing divestment set the bounds of the possible in the endowment management arena, and because those rules contain specific prohibitions against politically motivated divestment, the way campaigners talk about divestment matters. By contextualizing divestment law and the campaign discourse within the broader cultural politics of chmate change, the article reveals the relationship between discourse and policy formation in the divestment movement. Ideally, the campaigners should align their discourse with the rules governing divestment if the endowment trustees are the target audience. Yet as the analysis reveals, the campaign is simultaneously targeting multiple audiences and advancing multiple goals. Distinct and at times disparate discursive narratives are employed, symptomatic of the broader ideological clashes within the cultural politics of chmate change. While the neoliberal-managerial discourse variant aligns fairly well with the rules governing divestment, its rhetorical gains are undermined by a politicized eco-radical discourse that chafes against the divestment rules (viz., prohibitions against politically motivated and blanket industry-wide divestment). The dual discursive deployment and discursive misalignment incurs opportunity costs for the campaigners. Additionally, the survey and discourse analysis results reveal an agenda well beyond the scope of endowment management. The final analysis revisits the goals of the campaign and argues that fiduciary law can accommodate environmental, social, and governance concerns. Those seeking to "green" the endowments are more likely to succeed if they frame their arguments and methods as consistent with fiduciary duty and endowment finance. Ultimately, however, such accommodation will fail to satisfy some campaigners. Those seeking radical political and socioeconomic reform through the divestment movement are unlikely to find it in the realm of endowment management.
展开▼
