ExxonMobil’s letter to CU is sinister and pathetic

After a research team at the Columbia School of Journalism accused ExxonMobil of lying to the public about climate change, the multinational oil and gas corporation — the world’s fifth largest company by revenue — responded by issuing an aggressive and poorly executed comeback.

In a letter to President Lee Bollinger, the company accused professor Susan Rust and her team of manipulating research data against the company.

Since the start of the #ExxonKnew Twitter campaign this past September, the company has faced extreme pressure from climate-activist groups, amidst allegations that ExxonMobil knew—as early as the 1970s—that fossil fuel burning would have negative impacts on climate change .

The company admits to its “past participation in industry coalitions to oppose ineffective climate policies,” but seeks to avoid all blame.

It criticizes Rust’s reports for presenting “cherry picked” and “distorted” information that “ignored” some opposing evidence.

Their offensive tactic — essentially accusing their accuser of the very act they are being accused of (research manipulation) — is ironic and clumsy, if not outright dumb.

The easiest way to dodge a finger pointed at you? Point it back. Shift the blame. Change the narrative. The problem of research manipulation is yours, not ours.

The members of Rust’s team — Katie Jennings, Masako Melissa Hirsch, Dino Grandoni and Sara Jerving —are all recent graduates of the School of Journalism (and all explicitly called out by name in ExxonMobil’s letter).

The Thunder Horse platform in the Thunder Horse oil field, the largest in the gulf and of which ExxonMobil owns 25%

The letter targets Jerving in particular, for not having mentioned her affiliation with the school while conducting her research, claiming:

We have been told by individuals quoted in the Oct. 9 story that Ms. Jerving, a reporter and social media writer for the advocacy group Center for Media and Democracy, misrepresented herself as a Columbia Arctic researcher and made no mention of the fact that she was affiliated with the School of Journalism or that the research might eventually be published in a newspaper.

The backlash isn’t against Jerving’s findings: it’s against her journalism skills. But it seems what ExxonMobil is really angry about is not seeing this one coming.

ExxonMobil claims to have been “dismayed” at the published results, since Rust had originally “openly expressed contempt” for the #ExxonKnew narrative.

From the part of Rust, it’s smart reporting: keep your friends close and your enemies closer. For ExxonMobil, it’s an over-confident mistake: bad defensive techniques revealed their Achilles’s heel. Now, the company feels threatened and tricked, and so this is what they have resorted to.

The letter ends with a reminder that “ExxonMobil has had numerous and productive relationships with Columbia University for many years,” among them research programs, recruitment of graduates, and donations (in 2014, the company donated $220,000 to the university).

Rust’s reports, it claims, do not align with ExxonMobil’s expectations of Columbia University, on which it has based its previous contributions.

Implicit, I think, is the threat of revoking such privileges if the university fails to react accordingly. And it’s part of a longstanding tradition of powerful corporations attempting to silence academic and research institutions for financial gain.

Dean Steve Coll. Courtesy of Ralph Alswang

Thankfully, Steve Coll, the dean of Columbia’s Graduate School of Journalism, has not backed down. In his response letter, he highlights ExxonMobil’s ad hominem attack.

He addresses each point of the Exxon letter extensively and gracefully — calling certain comments “entirely inventions of your own,” and concluding that, “your allegations are unsupported by evidence.”

Rust, who insisted to The Tab that Coll’s letter was the school’s “final word on this matter,” declined to comment.

But the case is unlikely to end here. Hopefully, public pressure will continue to grow, making oil corporations increasingly accountable for environmentally irresponsible actions.

Today, I am proud to be part of a higher education institution that responds to corporate attacks with factual information, well-articulated arguments and boldness. I am proud that Columbia values truth over financing. And I am proud of the university’s bravery in dealing with this big, bad, multi-billion corporation .

Because here’s the key to all this: you don’t attack someone smaller than you unless you’re scared. Unless there’s reason to be scared. Unless it’s true.