Divestment Generation Mini Series - Episode 2

This is Episode 2 of the “Divestment Generation” mini series, a five episode series exploring the 9 year campaign to win fossil fuel divestment at the University of Toronto! In Episode 2, creators and co-hosts Amanda Harvey-Sánchez and Julia DaSilva speak with “Second Gen” divestment organizers - those who were active during the campaign from 2014 until President Gertler’s rejection of divestment in 2016. Our “Second Gen” guests are Katie Krelove, Ben Donato-Woodger, Keara Lightning, and Ariel Martz-Oberlander. 

In our song segment, CJTO member Rebecca and participants from CJTO’s September 2022 Orientation lead you in the third and fourth verses of a special adaptation of the movement song  “Which Side Are You On?”, originally by Pete Seeger. Stay tuned for further episodes in the “Divestment Generation” mini series to learn the rest of the song! 

This mini series emerges from Amanda’s doctoral research with CJTO, a two-year ethnographic community-based participatory research project tentatively entitled “Actualizing Everything: Affective Activism, Effective Politics, and the Future of Climate Justice Organizing in Canada”. 

Cite as: Harvey-Sánchez, A. & DaSilva, J. (2023). “Divestment Generation Mini Series, Second Generation (Ep.2)”. Climate Justice Toronto. 

EPISODE RESOURCES

UofT Fossil Fuel Divestment Timeline 

Divestment and Beyond, Briarpatch Magazine Article (by Amanda Harvey-Sánchez & Sydney Lang) 

Discovering University Worlds 

SONG

Adaptation of “Which Side Are You On?” by Pete Seeger 

LYRICS
Does it weigh on you at all? [High]

Does it weigh on you at all? [Low]

(x 2)

The city’s police chief

came knocking at your door

You gave ‘em 1 billion dollars

Does it weigh on you at all?

SOCIAL MEDIA & CONTACT INFO
Amanda Harvey-Sánchez: Twitter, Instagram, email

Julia DaSilva: julia.dasilva713@gmail.com
Ben Donato-Woodger: https://linktr.ee/bendw

Climate Justice Toronto (CJTO): Instagram, Twitter 

CJUofT (formerly LeapUofT): Facebook, Twitter, Instagram 

2185 Art Collective: Instagram

CREDITS
Editing: Amanda Harvey-Sánchez and Stefan Hegerat 

Original Music: Stefan Hegerat

Hosts: Amanda Harvey-Sánchez and Julia DaSilva

Guests: Katie Krelove, Ben Donato-Woodger, Keara Lightning, and Ariel Martz-Oberlander

Singalong: Rebecca and participants at CJTO’s September 2022 Orientation 

Producer: Climate Justice Toronto

Transcript

Episode 2 Transcript

This is Climate Justice Radio

Amanda: Hello and welcome back to Climate Justice Radio, a podcast by Climate Justice Toronto. Climate Justice Radio is a podcast that covers a wide range of issues connected to climate justice. My name is Amanda, and I use she/her pronouns. 

Julia: My name is Julia, and I use she/her pronouns.

Amanda: And we'll be your hosts for the episode. 

Julia: You're listening to our Divestment Generation miniseries: a five episode series exploring the nine-year campaign to win fossil fuel divestment at the University of Toronto. Be sure to check out the intro to the series, prior Divestment Generation episodes, and linked resources in the show notes for more information on the campaign.

Amanda: Stick around for the end of each episode, where we'll lead you in a new verse to a climate justice organizing song, an important community-building exercise in CJTO organizing meetings.

Julia: In episode two of the series, we're speaking to divestment organizers who were active during the campaign from around 2014 until President Gertler's rejection of divestment in 2016. Our guests are Katie Krelove, Ben Donato-Woodger, Keara Lightning, and Ariel Martz-Oberlander. Let's have our guests introduce themselves.

Katie: Sure, yeah, my name is Katie Krelove, and I live in Toronto/Tkaronto. When I was involved in the U of T divestment campaign, I was a master's student at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at U of T, and I currently work for a charitable conservation organization called the Wilderness Committee and we work to promote people-powered protections for nature, wildlife, and climate.

Julia: So great to have you here! Ben?

Ben: Hi! My name is Ben, he/him pronouns. I'm joining from where Katie is joining in Toronto - we're on the same zoom box. I am the executive assistant to MPP Kristyn Wong-Tam, who is a New Democrat at Queen's Park, the provincial legislature in Ontario. I was studying Social Anthropology and finishing up my undergrad when I was involved with the fossil fuel divestment campaign at U of T, and am an avid dog person.

Julia: The most important piece of information! Keara, do you want to jump in?

Keara: [Cree] My name is Keara Lightning. I'm from Samson Cree Nation. During the divestment campaign, I was a undergraduate in my first year at U of T, intending to study English. And now I am a master's student at the University of Alberta in Native Studies. And I also run a game and animation studio.

Julia: Amazing. Thank you so much for joining us. And finally, Ariel?

Ariel: I'm Ariel, I use she/her pronouns. I'm currently in Vancouver, which is Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh territory. And at U of T, I was studying theater, which is what I'm currently doing now. I'm a freelance writer, director, producer, and teacher, and I'm excited to be here.

Amanda: Amazing. Thank you all for being here with us today. So to get us started with the conversation, we just wanted to take us back to last October when we all heard the announcement that U of T was going to divest its fossil fuel holdings. So what was your reaction to the divestment decision? Walk us through that a bit if you can.

Katie: I will say the first word that comes to my mind is definitely bittersweet, when I heard the announcement, and I would say more on the bitter side than the sweet side. I was trying to compare between, like, between coke, and like a black coffee - it would probably fall at like an Earl Grey tea somewhere. And that's just because, I mean, the announcement nine years after we began this campaign, just seemed so, you know, a day late and a dollar short. The president kind of took all the glory for himself. And even though he gave some kind words to the students who had, you know, been pushing for this, he never named anyone or any organizations, even though he used our language in the announcement. And I'll just read a little bit of it: "The evidence of a climate crisis is NOW incontrovertible." Like it wasn't nine years ago. And he said, "Universities have the economic imperative AND moral obligation to manage their assets in a way that encourages carbon emission reduction." And I mean, that's exactly from the language that we used in the brief. I don't know, others?

Ariel: Honestly, I just feel completely neutral about it. I feel like it's not a campaign that I think has the same relevance that it did when we were working on it. And yeah, like you said, too little too late, honestly. I feel like there are way more pressing movements that need my attention these days. And yeah, talking about the climate crisis being an emergency only now, it's like, where have you been?

Keara: I guess I feel a little bit neutral, a little bit sweet, a little bit, maybe a little bit bitter for those reasons of like, it does feel too little too late. And I mean, I felt excited, or happy, for the people who were working on it now. It's so far removed, because it's been so long for us, that it didn't really feel like- I didn't feel that much of a personal connection to it anymore. But I just felt like, oh, there were people still doing that, like, good job.

Ariel: I mean, one thing that stands out to me, in reflecting back on the campaign and working on it, is that the movement for fossil fuel divestment across campuses in Canada was like, there was a moment when it was a big deal. Everyone was working on it. And people in so many, almost every Canadian university, and so many of us, that was like the first climate justice or environmental campaign that we worked on. For me, it was the first major one. I was like, what, 20. And a lot of us learned how to organize through that. And so for me, there's less relevance to that movement anymore in terms of its goals, because I see land back and frontlines - like stopping extraction projects - to be much more urgent. But I want to like give credit to a movement that taught a generation of students how to organize and was the first organizing opportunity.

Ben: Yeah, I want to second what you just said, Ariel. Because I think you captured - like, it's a bundle of emotions. And it's bundles of different things, which makes it weird. There is a happy part of me that like, we were right, we did a lot of right things. And it paid off. And having now worked in politics and seen how policies and policy processes work over a timeframe, we very rarely get instant gratification. Unfortunately, like a lot of organizing is extremely delayed gratification, where like, people will get convinced or norms will be changed, processes changed. And it'll be years down the road, the people doing the work might actually never get to see the benefits or the decisions that they led to, which can be disappointing. Yeah, so I definitely, like delayed gratification, almost I feel, but no forgiveness for Geric Mertler. Absolutely none, because he had a moment where he could have made a choice, and when it was all in his hands, he did not choose to be courageous, and he deserves no cookies and no forgiveness for any of that. Though I do wonder - and like this was the other reaction that I had, I guess in that moment was like - his background is geology, I wondered where he personally was at. He's somebody who presumably understands the physical reality of climate change, who might have even been on board and like, I wonder if him or other people on the Governing Council were motivated by this, and then played a really long game, which we should still take credit for, because it was the actual organizers who deserve the credit. But just confusion, and like, again, he gets no cookies, because he didn't build the relationship for us to even know how this happened. And he's very welcome to tell the world if Geric Mertler wants the world to know his story, but he has denied us every win and like, we're still mad at him because of that.

Katie: Well, and just to build on what Ariel said too, it's sort of lost - divestment so far after the fact lost the impact that it would have had in 2015: to lead, to be a leader, and to actually make a signal to other investors that this was going on. I mean, they're playing catch-up now, basically. So the symbolic victory of divestment was not captured by doing it in 2021.

Ben: Yeah, and just on the movement that really introduced so many people to organizing, what Ariel had said. I think a lot of warmth, love, and care for all the people that I thought of and all the protests and actions and things we did and good social times. I was happy and grateful and filled with care and warmth when I thought of those things. And that was nice, and then, yeah, that was good.

Keara: I just wanna add, I was glad that, you know something, like I was 19 when I was involved in divestment and now I'm 27. So it's big, it feels like a long time ago. And I was glad that all that we did, and all of the energy that we put into it, went somewhere, I guess. It meant something. I mean, it meant something to all of us. But that something came out of it. Someone else picked it up and kept going.

Katie: Yeah, but honestly, it's just, it's more meaningful, more meaningful to see all of you all, and all the other people that got all their organizing chops. I mean, I think that's more, to me, the sweet part of it.

Julia: So on the note of: this campaign is something that introduced a lot of people to organizing. Let's go back a bit. And could you tell us a bit about how you first got involved with divestment work? And was this your first organizing experience? And what drew you to the divestment campaign?

Ben: It wasn't the first organizing I had done, my mom had brought me knocking on doors for the NDP when I was seven. So I had done door knocking and very high-level climate policy, like "let's get a carbon tax in Ontario" - which I now cringe when I think back to it - kind of organizing. But it was very lobbying-oriented things, it wasn't a people-powered lens to it. So, I feel that divestment introduced me to the people-powered lens of organizing, and that a lot of people who had done a lot of organizing in the 70's - when I think they had a lot more rapid success with meeting politicians - had very lobbying-heavy approaches of you just need to meet your politician and explain the right thing to do. And now that I work in politics, I'm like, "oh, cringe, that's not how it works." That's literally, I can assure you, that is not how politics works.

Katie: I personally had not done much organizing. I mean, I had done canvassing for environmental organizations door-to-door and stuff like that. But I was definitely, I was in my first year of my master's, so a little more, or what I thought would be free time. But also doing a lot of, you know, a lot of, as you do in your master's, critical analysis. And you know, finding, especially in environmental education around climate change, that was there was very little talk about power dynamics, about money, about economics - that just wasn't part of the program. And I wanted that. So I was very much in the market. And obviously, like, climate change was something that I, you know, was thinking about all the time, and how to teach it, kind of thing. So I was definitely in the market for an organization or a campaign or a group that had local chops, like a local thing, but that connected to global. And also that had more of a power analysis, and put the blame for the crisis where it belonged: where the power is, where the money is. And so divestment kind of hit all those buttons for me. And I think that I actually went to one of Toronto 350's first showings of Bill McKibben's "Do the Math." And I just thought that movie really hit those economic analysis/critique buttons exactly, in a way that was really accessible. And, yeah, so I mean, that's what got me into divestment. And then the group of people that were doing it, were at Toronto 350 at the time, were good people.

Keara: I had no previous experience in anything like organizing before divestment. I have been from a small town that was very anti-political. I don't know if anti-political is the word, or just like, not active, I guess. And I came to Toronto and was in school, and learning all of these things, and I needed somewhere to put all of my angst and fear about climate change, and the future. Somewhere to put all of that. And I went to a divestment meeting, I think I saw it on Facebook and just threw myself into going. And I got involved pretty quickly in one of the first retreats, I think, we had a retreat. And I got involved in organizing workshops on solidarity, on Indigenous solidarity, so I just got in right at the time that those conversations were happening and got pulled into having these sorts of conversations that I had never had the opportunity to talk to people who wanted to engage in that conversation, coming from a small town where people would be like, "What are you talking about?" So that was, it was great for me.

Ariel: Yeah, I just like, I went to a few Toronto 350 meetings, I think. Honestly, because I like had a crush on this guy who was like really into - what was, what’s that thing where you grow food in water? Anyway, he took me to-

Katie: Hydroponics.

Ariel: Yeah yeah yeah, thank you. And he took me to this conference, we were talking about climate change and stuff. And then he recommended this book. And I was like, "oh my god, I'm not doing anything about climate change!" and like, had this freak out. And then because I had done some stuff in high school, and then I was like, "No, I'm in theater school now. I can't do both things." Whatever. And so I saw Toronto 350 had open meetings, so I went to one of those. And then I was there for a few months. And then Stuart, who was leading the group, was like, "Oh, do you want to get involved with this on campus?" and invited me to get involved with that. And, yeah, like Katie said, it's really about the people. Like, at that moment, that was a really nice, welcoming group. And that's why people keep going back to places where they're not paid to be there. It's because they feel belonging, and a sense of having meaningful impact. So that's why I kept going.

Amanda: Wow, that's very, very heartwarming to hear each of you reflect on your different pathways into this. And, and yeah, the importance of people for sure. A few of you who have now mentioned Toronto 350, or as it was later going by, U of T 350. So, at this time, in the second gen, the divestment campaign at U of T was being led by Toronto 350, U of T 350, and 350.org the NGO was putting a lot of capacity into supporting campus divestment campaigns. So I'm wondering if you can tell us a bit about what your relationship was like to 350.org? Or at the time, I think some of us called it the mothership. So what was that like? Did you see yourselves as part of that broader organization or movement? What was that relationship like?

Ariel: I actually don't remember any support from 350.org for the campus organizing. I felt more part of a Toronto group. I didn't really feel attached to a global organization. I don't remember any - maybe I'm incorrect, but I don't remember any material support, or staff or anything, helping us with the U of T campaign.

Katie: Yeah, no, for sure we, I mean, 350.org/the mothership did give us resources in terms of organizing materials, "how to organize" kind of materials, and just background. And for me, I definitely did feel good that it was connected to this sort of broader movement. And again, to me the "Do the Math" and Bill McKibben thing to me set up the background for why divestment mattered. But yeah, in terms of our organizing on campus, and in the day-to-day organizing, yeah, there, to me, like 350.org sort of seemed like a benign background presence that we could tap into for help when and if we wanted to.

Ben: I think I could have the social or historical context wrong, so I'm just gonna say how I experienced it, which was that a lot of climate organizations before targeted politicians, or just vague "climate change bad" was like the extremely simple messaging. And 350 stood out to me as one of the first that I experienced as blaming the fossil fuel industry. And now seeing how like a lot of successive organizers and organizations - I do want to recognize, I am sure other people did this long before 350. But I think that they gave standardized messaging to campus organizers in a way that just hadn't existed for people before. And because it was well-written and pithy it was very easy for people to just take out and use for protest signs, symbols like the orange X, kind of took off. And I think they helped coordinate that. The convergence that they organized was one of the first things that I think - like one of the big points of contact, they had a big coming together of all the different campus divestment campaigns in Montreal. And I often think back to that as where they were trying to very much shift people towards a climate justice analysis and climate justice messaging. It was very front and center of that convergence, with a not-so-hidden educational message: "you need to centre justice." And then I think that there were just a lot of people who had a lot of experience and didn't want it to become - to fall into the pitfalls that they saw previous campaigns that just, yeah, were like "climate change bad," "politician bad," and trying to give a story that had actors and villains and decision-makers in a more accessible way. And I know that they saw us - I've heard the phrase a few times "divestment is a campaign in a box," where they found it a very easy tactical campaign set that could be deployed and replicated. And that would often feed off each other, like students seeing students somewhere else doing something, being inspired. Student unions seeing other student unions supporting something and copying them. And I think that that was certainly true and hit a peak around 2014, 2016.

Katie: Yeah, yeah, I forgot about the convergence. But yeah, that was huge. And yeah, that's what sort of turned it from just this one off campaign to actual, "oh, we're actually teaching people how to organize."

Julia: Yeah, okay, so you've all been touching on this a lot, I think. But maybe let's pull back even farther from Toronto 350 and U of T 350. And just look a bit at the broader context that the campaign was situated in when you were involved. So can you tell us a little bit more about the state of climate organizing and climate justice organizing at this time? What were the big events, actions, or alliances animating the moment? So for example, were any of you involved with the March for Jobs, Justice, and Climate, or with other broader organizing moments like the TA strike at U of T? And how did this context affect how you approached divestment?

Ben: Stephen Harper was Prime Minister - that’s like the thing that like, comes to mind first. (laughter)

Katie: Definitely.

Ben: And like, clever, evil genius. And I think that like, when I now think back on it, it was like, people were so afraid of him that they forgot that the Liberals are equally shit, just because Harper was so proud of being Darth Vader in the flesh. That it was - yeah. I also think that there was like, we were in a moment of transition to a lot of digital organizing. A lot of organizing was like, there was one app, it was Facebook. Maybe Twitter, kind of, but like, honestly, for organizers, mostly Facebook, and everyone was on it. I've wondered, like, how do people do it now? Because that's not the case.

Katie: I know, it sucks on Facebook. You can't organize anything on Facebook.

Ben: Yeah!

Katie: But yeah, Stephen Harper was president, or prime minister. Slash evil genius. And so yeah, I mean, he is - the stuff he did to the environment was crazy and awful. But there wasn't that much organizing going on. And that's what I was saying, I was in the market for an organization. And I couldn't find one. I was like, Greenpeace? But you know, I don't know. And there definitely wasn't any climate justice organizing. So I mean, it really did feel like we were on the ground floor and got to participate in the ground floor of climate justice emerging as a linked, global, unifying connector of issues, or a way to bring climate as an issue into focus with bigger systemic structures of injustice and oppression.

Ariel: I want to also just add to that, I think pipeline organizers were thinking that way already before that. But yeah, it does feel like it all kind of came to the surface at the same time. And then, yeah, we were working on anti-pipeline stuff on campus, too, as part of the work that the divestment campaign was doing. Ben, do you remember running that event where we served everyone pizza, and they all signed up to like-

Ben: The NEB application party!

Katie: The application party.

Ariel: So a pipeline, what was it, line three? I don't even know what pipeline-

Katie: Energy East.

Amanda: Which is now dead, so it's another victory.

Katie: Yeah, we win, we won everything.

Amanda: It just takes 10 years. (laughter) Keara, what about you? I know you talked also about how in that moment, was when there were these conversations around Indigenous solidarity, too. Was that part of that context at the time?

Keara: I think it was an interesting moment where, in my perception, a lot of the climate organizing was still very - a white thing. And disconnected, like I felt conflict for myself on being part of these climate campaigns. I don't know how to word this. It was a good movement for sort of, I don't know, middle/upper-class white people to be a part of because it affected them. And then the messaging around the climate movement was like, "Hey, this is something that affects you. It's going to affect all of us and it's going to affect us all equally." That was what the messaging was at the time. And that was sort of the way that a lot of those people wanted to do that messaging. Like, "we can reach everyone, we can even reach all the people who have the most power, because we have to appeal to the fact that it's going to affect them equally to everybody else." And it was around that time that climate justice started to become more of a conversation, talking about how it wouldn't affect everyone equally. And starting to have those conversations was also like a very fraught thing, because you had a lot of the leaders of the campaigns and movements being that previous generation of people who had come into it with that messaging of "this affects everyone equally." And then another generation of people who wanted to talk about how it's not equal. It was an interesting time. And at the same time, I just had to look up - Idle No More was just in 2012. And then that had sort of fizzled out, and was a bit before my time of being old enough to be part of organizing. But I think it had an impact. And then before, like land back became a conversation now, there was a lot of talk within climate organizing around that "this affects everyone equally" and not, sometimes, not willingness to talk about land. So that was interesting. I'll just say that. Yeah, like when we talk about - sorry, like, things like hydro dams and solar projects, about whose land these projects were going to be on and how those projects were the solution to save us from climate change. And then who would have to make the sacrifices?

Katie: Yeah, I'll just add to that, you just jogged my memory that in terms of organizing that was happening at the time, I think, Indigenous Climate Action, which sort of, I think came out a little bit of Idle No More, was doing a lot of awareness raising and actions around tar sands expansion. So yeah, I mean, they should - I think that group, AND Idle No More should definitely be credited with - you know, at the time probably had the most active and justice-oriented and sophisticated organizing around climate at the time.

Keara: They were founded in 2015. 

Katie: Right.

Keara: I think partly out of that need to have Indigenous people leading the conversations within climate movement, where I think, you know, it was a conversation that was happening at a smaller, you know, individual level scale, like, say, within our campaign, and then ICA did a great thing by making a body to really organize on a larger scale to have that voice.

You’re listening to Climate Justice Radio, a podcast hosted by Climate Justice Toronto. We are building an irresistible movement to confront the climate crisis by addressing its root causes: capitalism, colonialism, and white supremacy.

Amanda: Another big question we're trying to trace here, over this series of episodes, is really the emergence of climate justice as a core framework or lens that climate organizers are coming to work with, but something that's still in emergence, and maybe not totally resolved too. So, a question to pose to all of you is kind of like: How would you define climate justice in your own terms? And then, when you started organizing, was climate justice already the assumed framework? Or was it a new, emerging thing? Like what period were you coming into it? If it wasn't new, do you remember specific moments, workshops, rallies, readings, conversations, dialogues, where that term or that concept was kind of coming to the fore? And maybe we can start with Keara since you were touching on that too, in your previous response, and then go around from there.

Keara: Sure. I'm curious what other people think. But when I was first involved, I didn't hear what climate justice was. I'd never heard that word. And we were having conversations around, like what I said earlier about, does climate change affect everyone equally or not equally? Like, affect people in different ways. And it was being a part of divestment after having those conversations and not really having a word for what we were talking about and what we were advocating for that, I don't know, at some point, people started talking about climate justice. And I was like, "oh, that's what we're talking about."

Ariel: Yeah, looking back, it felt like, at first it was a very white-led movement, and 350 a very white-led organization. And because we - people had been talking about, like, save the environment as a goal on its own, kind of in a vacuum for so long, which, like Keara was saying, doesn't take into account at all who was affected by climate change. And yeah, I mean, I want to also acknowledge that how - like the difficulties of probably, of being in Toronto 350. Especially, I remember one friend who I won't name here because she's not here to speak for herself. But just like the racism that did exist in Toronto 350, and that group, and that divestment campaign and, yeah, looking back, it felt like a time when maybe it was still okay to like, use Indigenous sovereignty as a reason to stop pipelines or like an extra added thing, instead of the main goal being Indigenous sovereignty, and through that, we will address climate change, which is my framework now. But I wasn't there at the time. And I will say that we were having some interesting conversations about solidarity. When the divestment campaign started working on the TA strike, that was an important moment for me. That was the first time that I had ever conceptualized like, "Oh, to build strong progressive movements, sometimes you have to work on an issue that you didn't set out to work on." I wasn't a TA, I didn't know anything about the union or whatever. But then, suddenly, members of our group were on the picket lines every day with the TAs, which felt really meaningful to me.

Ben: Yeah, I think I'll just like jump in with a comment kind of in the same direction that also like has a bit of an example. Ariel, you'll remember this one. But I think that like we had the biggest tent that I remember the fossil fuel divestment having like in terms of like trying to bring the most broad range of kinds of students and kinds of people together for the same cause, for better and for worse, because sometimes when you like put some of those people in the same room with other people, it's not good. And like, there are reasons some people aren't always in the same room as some people. And that was fraught, because we had some very - we had engineers and law students and higher level academic students who did not have an equity lens and did not necessarily see themselves as needing to learn from younger people with different lived experiences, if that wasn't how they saw knowledge as being generated. And like the example I'll just, I'll use - man, I was such a shit in undergrad. It was when, Ariel-

Katie: We all were.

Ben: You and I I went to - we were getting St. Michael's Student Union to endorse fossil fuel divestment, and I was also in LGBTOUT. And they had not been allowing LGBTOUT to like go to their student fair. And I just like wore a I think like a lot of eyeliner and a t-shirt that said "queer as fuck" on it, because I was like, making it extremely clear that I was extremely gay to them. And like kind of got me - some people weren't happy with me. And I think they learned from it, I do want to give them credit for like, I kind of like said like, "Oh, so you're telling me that like, you know, that queer people's right to be who they are in front of a very straight college is less important than their check box endorsement for this campaign." That is what the message is. Like they learned from and I want to give them full credit for that. Because I appreciated how a lot of those people then listened. But like it was fraught, it wasn't "everyone was on the same page, everyone thought there was one way to do it." It was like, people had very different experiences that led to some very awkward conversations. But I also think those conversations are where a lot of people learned and they never would have - like, I can't imagine a similar thing where they would have today. And I also just like, I don't want to necessarily bring us back to the last question, but it just - I was thinking about it. And this was pre-Bernie, which I think matters, in that there was a very broad disillusionment in there ever being somebody who could be remotely inspiring on a ballot. And I think that many movements had fully abandoned electoral politics, which I personally don't assess as the right choice, because they think we live in a democracy for better and worse, and it's not always the most democratic, but it is how power is exercised, and what ignores elections, at the loss of the most vulnerable. And I think that many movements had fully given up on it. And it was really interesting to see how a lot of people in 350 in the States broke off to form Sunrise, and then like, focused on electing people with good politics. As a part of that bigger learning that I think 350 was also going through, and a lot of their people were going through, especially around racial justice, where like the Democrats were, and are, garbage, and like wanting to have like meaningful choices on the ballot in a two-party system.

Katie: Yeah, I mean, I will, from my experience, I mean, I - definitely the term climate justice was not around when I started with, with Toronto 350. But, you know, I came at it through - with a sort of a justice lens, from the sense of like, you know, the recognition that, sort of on a global level, that the countries that benefited most from climate change and causing those climate change were the least impacted, and the regions of the world that, you know, were most impacted were the ones that had benefited least from it. So, yeah, I mean, in terms of climate justice, my lens, you know, was always kind of, sort of an economic justice lens and inequality that way, in the sense of, you know, the same systems of colonialism, oppression, of racism, genderism, that concentrated wealth in very small hands across the world is- are the same systems that a- have caused climate change, and that are same power systems that are refusing, basically, to act on it. So that's kind of the justice lens I was coming from. Yeah, and I think that, as Ben was saying, like doing all that outreach on campus, and, you know, because we really did work, really did work hard to do a lot of outreach, it was, yeah, kind of making those relationships, right, because outreach is really about making the relationships. And I remember, because I did work on the Jobs, Justice, Climate March in Toronto as an employee of 350.org and I was sort of the local outreach organizer. And you know, and that march really was about - tried really hard to unite, like, bring in all kinds of different types of justice groups and other types of groups. And so I remember, the organizer for No One Is Illegal saying "It's not just about critical mass, it's about critical relationships." And that's always what sticks to me, like when it comes down to organizing for- with a justice lens, it really is about putting yourself out there and being... and as I think Keara was saying, or maybe Ariel was saying, yeah, doing the work, like, yeah, during the TA strike as well, like showing up for those other movements, justice movements, even when it has nothing to do with with advancing your goals. And that, and yeah, and I think that was within our organizing group, there was kind of a divide, that was the divide whenever we would try, or Keara or whoever, any other people as well would try to bring the justice lens to our organizing, was, you know, people with that, you know, more conservative environmental movement background - which is a totally, you know, awful background, white, you know, historical movement - would tend to say, "Well, we don't have time for that! We're focused on this goal, and we have to put all of our energy into that goal, and we don't have time for justice." And, and that was always a tension within the actual people within the group. I think it always has been - it probably still is. But then yeah, and then that other level of justice within the group and actually organizing and all the little sort of, like microaggressions and recognizing them, and how do we actually organize, and structure our organizing, to not like, recreate those oppressive systems, was the underlying and probably bigger learning that I think we all went through and didn't fully successfully realize. But that was really, like for my learning, that was huge.

Ben: I think even like riffing off a thing you said, Katie, I remember people using the word climate justice, but I think a lot of people met it meant it theoretically, as in like, "Oh, if we avert climate change, those who don't have the most resources will be benefited the most, therefore justice." But like, that landed very hollowly, and rightfully so, with people who were like "No, it's like relational. If you don't have a connection to like, groups affected by this issue in your city, then what on earth are you doing?" And having those camps - it's like, more like a spectrum or like everyone fell along the spectrum there, I feel. It was a very disorganized way of kind of swimming in the most- in a similar direction. There were moments that were, I feel that, because divestment had some of the like - we did direct action trainings, we did like media trainings. And there were moments where like, that really did help other groups, like with the TA strike, it was mostly divestment crew, who ended up occupying the Dean of the Faculty of Arts' office, just because like we knew how to do it, we we understood that they can't accept like, this is how you barge into someone's office and sit down and refuse to go, and like, we like knew how to talk to security guards and like, de-escalate them or be like, "No, you can't actually arrest me on this spot. That's not a thing." And like, that was helpful, I think and was tangible solidarity. But I don't think - like it was fundamentally relational. I think, for so many of us, we cared about Jo. And the TA strike, it was about the people who we knew who were on strike, at least as I experienced it, more even than the theoretical things, which like, yeah, it was right, it was inspiring, sure. But it was like, there were people we cared about who were being bullied by the university. And it was like, "How dare you bully our friend, Geric Mertler?" Was like, the really visceral, motivating - and like, please correct me if I'm like speaking only for myself. But that was a huge part of it.

Julia: Yeah, okay. So, speaking of barging into people's offices, and sitting down and not leaving, I'm gonna pivot a little bit here to talk about your approach to interactions with U of T as an institution. You've talked a lot about messaging and group dynamics. But I'm also interested in hearing, what was your strategy for navigating, say the institutional processes of the ad hoc committee, and the brief, all your interactions with the administration and just all of that bureaucracy?

Keara: I think from my perspective, that is another place where we had a lot of conflict. The campaign as a whole I think tended to go towards, "Let's follow all the rules, and we have a good relationship with the administration, let's not upset them, let's follow the bureaucracy that we have to and have good meetings and have a good relationship with them and they like us." And around the brief and that sort of thing. And I think that contributed to people being really discouraged and burnt out at the end of it, because we had a lot of, I think, like half of the people had a lot of faith put into, "If we follow all the rules and do the bureaucracy, and they like us, then they will agree with us, because we are, you know, we have all of the evidence, and we’ve followed the procedures, so therefore, this should work." And then half of us were like, "They're not going to do it, because we're not building enough power. And we're not, you know, showing that we can disrupt things." And then at the end of it, I think both sides were really discouraged and burnt out both from fighting with each other and from it not working out. 

Amanda: Yeah, it's almost, um - Hearing how you reflect it back, Keara, and it's a little heartbreaking how it seems like in some way everyone loses, right? If we can't work well, and in a good way with each other, we'll burn out and no one wins. Anyone else wants to jump in?

Ben: I think this is kind of where the division of outreach - so there were like two kind of big chunks that like meetings were divided into, which was outreach - I think everyone here was on the outreach side - and then the like, the brief or governing council side that like, tended to have people who felt more comfortable navigating white, upper-class, academic contexts, and found them less like morally repugnant, or just actively trying to prevent them from being in those spaces. And that they always, yeah like, took a kind of strategic precedence, even though they got everything they wanted. And it was still a no.

Katie: Yeah, I mean, I'll just say, we were very explicit about it, we would call it the inside game and the outside game, and at meetings, you know, it would be like, “Okay, now we're talking about the outside game, or now we're talking about the inside game.” But yeah, it was very much divided in terms of who was involved in both of those, as someone I actually straddled both, like I did both.

Ben: Yeah. 

Katie: And I, I always found them complementary, but I can understand that it wasn't perceived that way or that, or that yeah, different people valued, there was different values put on the different strategic paths. But in terms of the inside game, I mean, I personally, don't think it was a total failure on the inside game. Specifically because I mean, the fact that we got the Faculty Association of U of T to sign on, and we had a lot of really, we raised a lot of, we had a lot of really good meetings with professors who I think were influential in their own way in terms of bringing up the topic amongst their colleagues and stuff like that. And then, the actual ad hoc president's appointed divestment committee, the fact that they recommended divestment, to me was always a win. After that, I was like, it doesn't matter if Gertler doesn't take it, that's a win. The fact that we got his own appointed committee to agree with us and recommend divestment to me was always like, it doesn't matter what- that's a huge win. A huge inside win. And I think all of the outside actions and the disruptions were at the same time as the divestment committee was making its decision, considering it, was sort of at the peak of when all of those outside demonstrations were happening. And I think those impacted the decision of the committee a lot. And I mean, I think we also worked - I know I at least got one of those committee members on through my personal relationship.

Ben: Yeah, and it like, it became a meme apparently, in like the U of T student meme group that like, never went away from the moment of rejection. The like, Geric Mertler as a meme persisted, like refusing to divest persisted! Somehow the relationships and attention just like lived on in the minds of students to come, which I think is an outreach win, personally, to have inspired pettiness for generations of students to come after us. That's an outreach win.

Julia: As someone who finished my undergrad in 2020, and was in the U of T memes group the whole time, a large portion of the memes were divestment-related into like 2019-2020.

Amanda: Yeah, I feel like it speaks almost to something one of you said earlier of how sometimes you don't see the impact of your work, because you've moved on. But there is that impact, other future organizers like Julia felt it, right? Keara, Ariel, would you like to jump in? We can also move to another question.

Keara: I didn't mean to disparage the inside game, because that was obviously a lot of work. And important. Just want to like clarify my reflection around that relationship being that, I think, the desire to keep a smooth relationship with the administration was a part of internal conversations about like, how respectable we need to act, which was harmful, I think, to people who wanted to have more justice-oriented conversations. Or I think, a good example of that I think, Ben, is like the story that you brought up about wearing the "queer as fuck" shirt, that sort of respectability thing was reflected a lot. And I think it had a lot to do with that desire to be respectable and follow procedures. And, yeah.

Ben: And I think, now thinking back, like building on what you just said Keara, like, I think 350 almost expected it. And I don't know if they prepared us for it, of like, "It's going to be a no." I think, like, a lot of the seasoned organizers were like, "Yeah, the powers that be, of course they're gonna say no, or they would have done this already. If it was in their financial interests, they would have divested ages ago. But it's like, their own respectability to donors, and all of these things that like, we actually have to teach you how to fight a no." Was like a big part of it. But I don't know that we were braced for it as much and like, Jo granted, to Jo's credit, always said like, "and when they say no," there was no doubt, no trace of like, hesitation, whenever Jo talked about it, like, as an experienced organizer, like, "Listen, kids, power doesn't concede anything without a demand, don't you know?"

Amanda: Maybe we can transition kind of, I know, we've talked a little bit about the tensions in bringing those two together. But were there any moments or particular tactics that you think were effective? Or like, "oh, yeah, in that moment," - well we talked about the memes a little bit. Was there any tactic or strategy where you're like, "Okay, this was a win for the campaign," if not the big end-all win.

Katie: I mean, I think the- I mean, the other thing like that needs to be contextualized with this whole talk, in terms of wins, is that U of T is not a campus that gets riled up about issues. So, you know, when there was- when we had our march and rally outside of Gertler's office, I think there was like 300 students- people there, 350, 350-400. And that was huge for U of T, like I, you know, I went to my undergrad at U of T, I did my Bachelor of Education at U of T, I spent, I - this was like my eighth year at U of T. And so for those, for people who hadn't spent as much time on that campus, I'd never seen any - well, I hadn't seen anything like that since like, the 90s and like anti-globalization stuff. Like I think we did get a critical mass, at least in the student body.

Ben: Yeah, I think that getting every student club to endorse us, my god, if you were a student club at U of T, your inbox was full of requests from us for a meeting about like, can you officially endorse us, and that made so many students aware. I thought that was a really smart tactic. And journalist- student journalists all were very familiar with us and would cover things in a very friendly manner I found, which was helpful.

Katie: About the inside/outside game, I think a perfect example of where they came together once was, remember when we - I don't know, I don't know who, but some of us were planning on like sitting in like Gertler's office? And then we accidentally got cc'ed on an email from within the administration that they knew that we were going to be sitting in, or they thought we were going to, or something like that?

Ben: (laughter)

Katie: I think we weren't even going to, they just like, we got accidentally cc'ed on an email.

Ariel: Yeah, I think actually one of the wins of the campaign was like how afraid they were of us.

Ben: Yeah.

Ariel: We were gonna do some dangerous shit. Yeah, I felt powerful about that.

Ben: I don't know if it is a tactic, but I feel like a lot of the organizing training though, and like especially the solidarity and justice training, was a really important tactic. Because I actually think it's what kept people around of like, "No, this is where we have to be going" or like, "These are the real fights and what we have to be focusing on." And I think a lot of people were exposed to that and met people and made friends and relationships through those tactics, that is why they organize today. And I feel that a lot of educational works to shift a group's own internal dynamics are not always seen as a tactic, but like, no they're a tactic.

Katie: Retreats were a good tactic.

Ben: Yeah.

Katie: Pizza parties.

Ben: Yeah.

Katie: Yeah, I mean, I think we definitely also benefited from the New York People's March. Because, getting people out on the bus for three days in - or two days, or whatever it was - in New York City, sleeping on the floors and stuff, people who were not, like people who were just so random, like, not necessarily had any background in organizing or actions, but just were like, "yeah, no, this climate change thing." And, you know, that march had its faults, but I mean, it was sort of that first, in my mind, movement towards bringing in the justice side. Or trying, you know, expanding the tent.

Ben: And like joining the TA strike was a tactic as well. And it was also I think, one of the winters where Black Lives Matter Toronto had set up a camp outside of the Toronto Police headquarters, and there was a lot of support from the divestment folks around those protests and amplifying and sharing. And I think that like, that was a lot of the actual education work that happened in the campaign, right, like building those relationships and listening.

Keara: The People's - I don't know if this is related, but the People's Climate March, that was my first march that I ever went to. And that was like, September of my first semester at U of T. And I just saw something that was like “free bus to New York,” and I was like, "Cool. I'm gonna go, might as well." And, and then a few months later, I got involved in the divestment campaign. That was a great thing. So thanks for organizing on it.

Ben: I also think humour was a big tactic, like our chant, one of the big chants was "What do we want? Fossil fuel divestment! When do we want it? Gradually, over five years." Like I think they were just like some like weird moments that were like, they made people feel like they were in on a joke, and I think were like very effective at community building. Like Geric Mertler as another one of just like, everyone knows who I'm talking about when I say it, just because there's that understanding of like, this is how we mock the man whomst is bad. (laughter)

Katie: Well, yeah, you, I don't think any of you guys were there. This is probably actually an event that marks the moment between the first and second generation. It was right before, or after, the launch of the brief, or whatever. And we had something called a "divestment meme party," in person, on campus, though, at the time, I had no idea what a meme was, like, this is how I learned what a meme was. And we, like, printed off a bunch of memes, and got people to like, write their own divestment memes. (laughter) But yeah, so yeah, there was-

Ben: In a fancy - like, the context is like, this is a banquet hall level event. A meme party.

Amanda: Wow, the birth of memes, this is early days.

Julia: If no one else has anything to add, I'm gonna bring us to our final question, which is: As you know, in the spring of 2016, after the campaign had gone through the formal petition process, and the ad hoc committee recommended divestment, President Gertler rejected the petition. What was your reaction to the rejection at the time? How did you interpret it at the time? And I'm curious, has your interpretation changed since? And then also thinking about what the impacts of the rejection were on U of T 350 as a group.

Katie: For me, I was very much moved on to the Energy East campaign. That's when our Energy East campaign was really revving up, and we were getting a lot of good traction there. And as Ben has said earlier, I mean, we, we expected a no, so I was more looking for, how is he going to say no? We've made it really hard for him to say no, since his own committee has recommended divestment. And so, yeah, I mean, there was a lot of blather at the time about this sustain- What was it called? "Oh, we're not going to divest. We're going to do it this other way."

Ben: Eco-social -

Katie: Yeah.

Ben: Ecological social responsibility goals, which is like capitalists feeling good about themselves.

Katie: Yeah. So for me, it was like, There's no way he's going to do what we want him to, because he will lose face, or whatever. And so he's going to make up some other term and make himself look good while he says no. But yeah, so I wasn't, I mean I was pissed, I think I got pretty drunk, but... (laughter)

Ben: And also, the terms of the rejection - I think this is a thing that can get glossed over by the administration - but it was like, what? He made three secret committees that he did not tell even the ad hoc committee about, that met in secret and actually held the power. And I think they must have been at UTAM is going to be my guess, is like that U of T Asset Management, the people who manage the university's endowment, told none of us about it, and it felt like getting stabbed in the back. And it's like, why I'm not willing to give him the cookie today, because everything about the way - like if he had just said, "I am just a no," that's fine, but like, oh no, you were like having secret committees, and this was all a facade for you. Okay. It was really infuriating, the exact way in which he did it and the administration did it of - there were some very conservative people who are always a no and just wanted to tease organizers along till they could get to a no.

Amanda: I just want to clarify - you all were expecting a no? Or was anyone here thinking that there was, or still hoping that it would be a yes, or unsure?

Ariel: I remember being pretty sure that he would say yes, because of the committee. I feel like that's how we framed it for ourselves inside the campaign was like, "Oh, if we get the committee to recommend it, then he won't be able to say no." So I remember being a little bit surprised, but ultimately, not 100% surprised because you can't trust men in power like that to do the right thing. So yeah, not 100% surprised or not surprised.

Ben: Same as Ariel.

Katie: Yeah. I think it was surprising because basically he said "no, but." Right? And he could have easily just said "yes, but." You know what I mean? He said no, but with caveats. And he could have just said yes, but with caveats. So to me, that difference was infuriating. Because it felt to me anyways, it was like, "Oh, you just don't want to give us the satisfaction of even using the word yes." You know what I mean?

Keara: I don't remember what I was expecting or what my reaction was, except I do remember the "Beyond Divestment" title being very infuriating.

Katie: Infuriating, yeah. "Oh, your guys' little stupid little divestment is not even the best idea." Yeah.

Amanda: I don't know if everyone remembers the, like "Beyond Bullshit" rally that we had afterwards.

Katie: Wait. 

Amanda: But yeah, so what happened in the immediate aftermath? Little elephant in the room here. But what happened to U of T 350? What happened to each of you here? I know Keara had already transferred, but you were coming back. Ariel, I can't remember if you had graduated yet? Or Ariel, didn't you do an action at your graduation or something?

Ariel: Oh my god, I forgot about that until just now. That's hilarious. I did a banner drop as I crossed the stage. I painted this banner with Jodie - oh, I remember Jodie! - oh my god, at the warehouse, because we were making materials for the march, the Jobs, Justice, Climate March. And so I made this size. And it said, "Give me a fossil free degree." That's what it said. And then I hid it in my graduation gown. And then when I crossed the stage, I didn't shake anyone's hands. I just turned around and like unfurled the banner. And then, everyone cheered, which was great. There was like 3000 people in that huge auditorium. And they had told everyone not to clap for every single person because it would have taken so long, but they all clapped for me. And then I just ran offstage.

Ben: Wait. (laughter)

Amanda: It takes a lot of courage to do something like that. So yeah, props to you, Ariel.

Ariel: I was a little shit back then. I did some stuff, for sure.

Amanda: Do you think you are more courageous now? The same? Less? (laughter)

Ariel: Just in different ways.

Katie: Yeah, like I said, I was helping organize the Jobs, Justice, Climate March as well. Doing the Energy East stuff. We did also have that direct action at the Toronto stock exchange with all the balloons, that divestment one. Yeah. So I mean, there were still lots that was going on.

Ben: Yeah. My observation was that, I think the inside and outside game - I had graduated at this point - but it fully splintered after that. At that point there was nothing to unify the theories of change and some people wanted to go into solidarity/direct action, which is super fair, and other people - I don’t know what your inside game is after a no - nobody wanted to do that. Yeah the group kind of disintegrated, and then divestment was taken up by the Leap U of T. I think was how I remember that kind of panning out.

Amanda: Stay tuned for episode three to find out what happened next! (laughter)

Ben: I would say just like everyone did different things but all of the core people I think went and organized in different ways and in different spaces. So it’s not like it was useless or anything. Like a lot of people learned about negotiating with power, outreach, getting a no, and then going on from that, and went on to use all of those in very different and important contexts. I could name a lot of people who are now doing, I think, really cool and important things from that campaign. 

Katie: Like including CJTO.

Ben: Yeah. Yeah, I remember being like, happy when I heard that Climate Justice Toronto had formed, because I was like, “Oh thank god. They’re starting off on the justice footing and not trying to drag the bureaucratic, academic cohort kicking and screaming to justice. There’s just like a shared understanding.” Like that, I just remember like looking at that from a distance and being like, that looks so much cleaner as a runway for launching than what we went through.

Ben and Julia: (laughter)

Amanda: Well again, thank you so much, all of you, for being here. This has been just so lovely to be able to reconnect with all of you, and we will see some of you back in episode five. And, yeah, I think we can end it there!

Rebecca: Hi, this is Rebecca, and welcome to the song segment of Climate Justice Radio. So if you remember from last episode of this miniseries, I started teaching you the song “Which Side Are You On?” but we only got to the first two verses. So let’s continue where we left off and I’ll teach you the next two verses of the song. Okay, play the recording.

So the next part goes:

Does it weigh on you at all?

Does it weigh on you at all?

Okay, awesome. So this one goes:

The city’s police chief

Came knocking at your door

You gave them one billion dollars

Does it weigh on you at all?

Oh, spicy! Stay tuned for next episode where I’ll teach you a couple more verses. See you then.

Julia: Stay tuned for episode three of the Divestment Generation miniseries, where we'll be speaking with divestment organizers who were active during the campaign from 2016, following President Gertler’s rejection of divestment, until the start of the covid-19 pandemic in 2020. Climate Justice Radio is brought to you by Climate Justice Toronto. This miniseries features original music by Stefan Hagerat and editing by Stefan, Amanda, and Julia.

The creators and co-hosts of the series are Amanda and Julia. The sing along was led by Rebecca and included participants at CJTO'S September New Member Orientation. Special thanks to CJRU Radio and 2185 Art Collective for use of their recording space and equipment and to the Discovering University Worlds research team for funding to support editing.

You can find all our socials and a link to sign up to join CJTO, at our website, climatejusticeto.com. The transcript for this episode as well as other information and links mentioned in the podcast will be on our episode description. Thanks for tuning in. Remember to hit subscribe to be the first to be notified when we drop a new episode, and if you've been enjoying this podcast, feel free to leave a friendly review. In solidarity, Climate Justice Radio.