In recent months, a Harvard environmental law professor has been criticized for failing to fully disclose her ties to an oil company while lobbying on their behalf. The professor, Lisa Heinzerling, has denied any wrongdoing and has defended her actions by citing the “qualified immunity” that allows members of the faculty at universities such as Harvard to undertake limited consulting work for businesses and other organizations.
The controversy began when Heinzerling joined forces with several other environmentalists to promote a campaign advocating for less-stringent regulations for oil drillers operating in the Arctic Refuge. The group was made up of the World Wildlife Fund, the Sierra Club, and other conservation and environmental organizations. Although Heinzerling declared her involvement with the group, she did not make mention of the fact that she was being paid by the oil company she was lobbying on behalf of.
Heinzerling’s involvement with the oil company was discovered after a lengthy investigation by the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington-based watchdog organization. Subsequently, a number of groups and individuals, including environmental lawyers and ethicists, have questioned the professor’s conduct. They contend that while the professor may have a right to take on consulting jobs, she should have publicly disclosed her affiliation with the oil company.
Heinzerling’s supporters, however, point out that the professor’s work with the oil company was limited to public relations and marketing and did not involve any lobbying activities. As such, they argue that it would have been inappropriate for her to disclose her ties to the oil company.
The debate is still ongoing, as Heinzerling and her critics attempt to come to an agreement on the issue of disclosure. The professor has argued that she is simply performing her job to the best of her ability and, by doing so, is helping to further research and knowledge in the field of environmental law. Ultimately, the controversy serves to illustrate the increasingly blurred line between the academic world, the private sector, and the legislative process.
