Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

ExxonMobil costs Stanford a big donor

Posted by Evan Derkacz at 10:34 AM on March 12, 2007.


Anyone wanna buy a reputation?
exxonraymond
The CEO alone, Lee Raymond made $6,000 per hour, while funding misinformation to screw your child's future. Sounds like clean money to me....

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Millionaire movie producer Steve Bing has withdrawn his donation to Stanford (his alma mater; and a school with numerous "Bing" buildings), due to its partnership with ExxonMobil commenting, through a spokesman, that: "Exxon Mobil is trying to greenwash itself, and it's using Stanford as its brush."

DUH. ExxonMobil is giving $100 million over 10 years (while other big oil interests are throwing in another $125 million over the same period) and is doing so to either rehabilitate their tarnished brand or to affect the research of one of the world's leading institutions -- or both.

According to Jennifer Washburne, an expert in the relationship between Universities and Corporations, an ad on the NY Times' oped page, signed by the Stanford Prof Lynn Orr, "suggested that the scientific debate about global warming is ongoing: 'Although climate has varied throughout Earth’s history from natural causes, today there is a lively debate about . . . the climate’s response to the presence of more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.'"

This, despite the fact that, as the Mercury article notes, there's a virtual consensus on the fact that human activity is the cause of global warming.

It comes as no surprise, of course, that ExxonMobil was still ...

... deeply immersed in a massive misinformation campaign on the subject long after it signed the agreement with Stanford.

The perfect wording comes from Stanford spokeswoman, Elaine Ray, who countered charges with this carefully indignant statement: "The claim that Stanford has lost any academic autonomy as a result of sponsored research is preposterous on its face."

"Preposterous" is right -- except the only preposterous notion is that massive donations from a corporation proven to fund misinformation would not effect the University's reputation -- if not the quality of the research itself. I'd like to see Elaine Ray invest her child's college money with a broker who has stated interests in the growth of a particular industry. You don't do that, because it'd be a conflict of interest. It's stupid and disingenuous and anyone would think you were an irresponsible idiot for doing so.

It's so preposterous to argue against the fact that an avalanche of interested money is a bad thing for a supposedly objective institution that it's hard to believe that anyone would try it with a straight face.

Now, if ExxonMobil has a sincere interest in funding new research, and Stanford wants to take their money, fine. But in order for that to work -- and I'm not personally opposed to it altogether -- some preparatory measures should be instituted.

Stanford should require that ExxonMobil come to terms with the reality that, as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change just determined, "it is an unequivocal series of evidence [showing that] fossil fuel burning and land use change are affecting the climate on our planet." And ExxonMobil should no longer be allowed to give money to groups who argue that the jury is out on global warming.

Of course, Stanford requires nothing of its partner, except that the checks keep coming.

It's an age-old question: Do you work with large corporations, showing them that their bottom line won't be effected by more socially responsible positions and products or do you force them via the government and/or public pressure to do the right thing?

There's no easy answer but this laissez faire approach to partnering with corporations hardly forces them into anything; it's more likely, in fact, to give them the "greenwashing" they need to continue their potentially catastrophic course...

This message was paid for by Citizens Against Stanford and ExxonMobil.* Of course, the message was not altered by the fact that CASE paid for it in the least. We swear and we're really pissed at the preposterous nature of any potential claim that that's the case. REALLY pissed.

*Citizens Against Stanford and ExxonMobil is a fictitious group, though you may yet see it mentioned in stories on the subject. Keep the google handy...

Digg!

Tagged as: exxonmobil, stanford

Evan Derkacz is an AlterNet editor. He writes and edits PEEK, the blog of blogs.


Blago: It Just Keeps Getting Stranger
Have you noticed that Blagojevich appears to be stark raving mad?
Post by Steve Benen. January 9, 2009.
Obama: 'If Paul Krugman Has a Good Idea … Then We're Going to Do It'
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has been a frequent critic of President-elect Obama.
Post by Amanda Terkel. January 9, 2009.
Kucinich Speaks Out Against Congress' Blind Support of Israel
"We must take a new direction in the Middle East.
Post by Staff. January 9, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Shameful behavior of academic institutions
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Mar 12, 2007 12:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's disgusting to see academic administrators bending over backwards to please corporate sponsors - Stanford's situation with their 'Global Climate and Energy Project' being funded and controlled (despite their denials, it is controlled) by ExxonMobile, General Electric, and Schlumberger Oil Services is just ridiculous - but it's standard behavior for American academic institutions. They are busily turning themselves into corporate research parks for the likes of Exxon and BP - and this, like the corporate control of American media institutions, is a very bad sign. We shouldn't forget history - the rise of Nazi fascism in Germany was preceded by the Nazi takeover of the press and of the educational system - and corporate fascism is playing the same game today. The result is corruption at the highest levels of American academic institutions - the University of California and Stanford being prime examples.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Silly.
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Mar 12, 2007 7:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are countless professorships, scholarships, etc funded by the "evil" corporations (Dow, Monsanto, ExxonMobil, Merck, etc etc) but what is more disturbing is that any individual, particularly one who claims to be progressive, would give money to an institution dedicated to elitism, much less anti-environmental studies. Sure the big companies give money. Of course, they get free research done, they get the first dibs on new graduates, and they get good press. But these people who give to large institutions with their own cash cannot be progressive. The very nature of elite institutions is non-progressive, survival of the fittest, weed-out the 'lazy' students, perfer 'legacy' students (i.e., white, monied students), and accept students based on proven racist/classist tests (SAT, LSAT, GRE, MCat, etc.) Their only goal, now, is to make money (through their vast investments) and to indoctrinate students in the teaching of dead white males and the 'science' behind the energy, chemical, and pharmacuetical industries.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

frank67
Posted by: frank67 on Mar 13, 2007 2:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nothing new - Stanford and Exxon. Condi Rice was a wheel at Stanford - sat on the board of Chevron - had a tanker named for Rice - Chevron changed the name after Bush hired her. Big universities and corporations go together like rum and coke, like hot dogs and mustard, or like peanut butter and jelly. Nothing new...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]