Tuesday's front−page article on Tufts' sustainability ratings highlighted many of the great ways the university works to build a sustainable community. However, the article seemed to focus on the flawed methodology of the Sustainable Endowments Institute (SEI) in creating their College Sustainability Report Card.
For example, the questions and criteria used were said to "be flawed and vague," and Tufts is currently focusing on a different study, according to Executive Vice President Patricia Campbell. The student body must do its own research to determine the validity of these claims. We should question whether the university's participation in a different study — namely, the Sustainability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System (STARS) — is necessarily more effective.
An area where Tufts consistently performs poorly is in its Endowment Transparency Rating. This year, the school earned a "D." Yet this poor grade has little to do with flawed methodology or vague questions. Instead, it accurately speaks to the current endowment transparency climate at Tufts. Presently, endowment holdings and proxy voting records are only available to top administrators. This is incredibly problematic and quite different from practices at other nearby schools, such as Harvard University, where proxy voting records are fully accessible to the entire public.
The College Sustainability Report Card accurately assesses endowment transparency by asking how the school handles proxy voting, who is given access to investment information, where endowment holdings are held, and whether alumni can direct gifts to an investment fund allocated to tackle sustainability issues. All of these questions have multiple possible answers, as well as space for clarification.
For example, in response to the question, "Where is information about proxy voting records made available?" there are five possible answers, including: information is not made available; information is available at the investment office or similar office on campus; information is sent to individuals upon request; information is on the school website with password protection; and information is on the school website and is accessible to the public. This allows for a specific and finely tuned ranking.
On the other hand, the STARS system, which Tufts is adopting, is much less specific. Like that of the SEI, the rankings are derived from self−reported data from Tufts. However, STARS uses simple "yes" or "no" questions. For example, they simply ask the school to respond in the affirmative or negative to broad topics such as "endowment transparency," "committee on shareholder responsibility" or "investment screening." Under these broad criteria, schools could score highly even if their transparency committees or screened investments are so small or so ineffective as to be basically nonexistent.
Obviously, the school should not fall prey to the multitude of ineffective ranking organizations. On the other hand, we should ensure that any decisions to work with a particular ranking organization are motivated by the desire to evaluate Tufts truthfully and will not result in possibly skewed or misleading rankings.
At the end of the day, Tufts deserved a "D" in endowment transparency, and the school should recognize that and work to promote change. Hopefully, we will see a commitment to endowment transparency that will pass the test of any ranking system.
--
