The Debate on Energy and Justice: A Harvard Model Congress Analysis

At this year’s Harvard Model Congress two major debates have taken center stage: the future of renewable energy in Sub Saharan Africa and the controversy surrounding prison divestment protests at the University of Michigan These discussions reflect critical real world issues: the global energy crisis and the intersection of activism, justice, and free speech.

⸻

The Energy Debate: Balancing Natural Gas and Renewables in Africa

A key resolution debated at the conference focused on the deployment of distributed renewable energy in Sub  Saharan Africa The resolution acknowledged that while the region possesses significant natural gas reserves, which could serve as an immediate solution to the energy crisis, the long-term focus should be on renewable energy development

Proponents of the resolution argue that:

1. Natural gas can provide short-term energy stability – Given the high energy demand, prioritizing natural gas would offer a rapid, stable, and consistent energy supply.

2. Economic growth – A reliable energy supply would foster industrialization, economic development, and improved living standards.

3. A long-term renewable transition – While natural gas can serve as a bridge, the resolution stresses that investment in solar, wind, and hydroelectric energy must be prioritized to ensure sustainable development

However, critics raised concerns about:

1. Environmental risks – Heavy reliance on natural gas could delay the transition to renewables and increase carbon emissions.

2. Energy justice – Some delegates argued that energy policies should prioritize affordable and locally controlled energy rather than reliance on fossil fuels that might benefit only large corporations

3. Funding challenges – Developing renewable infrastructure requires significant financial and technological investment which might not be immediately feasible

The debate ultimately reflected the global energy dilemma how to balance economic growth sustainability and energy access in rapidly developing regions

⸻

Prison Divestment Protests and the Limits of Free Speech

The second major case debated involved Jasmine Ahmed a University of Michigan student who led protests against the school’s financial ties to private prisons. The movement gained traction after the death of Derrick Jones, an inmate who allegedly died from starvation in a privately-run prison linked to university investments 

Ahmed’s activism included:

• Organizing sit-ins at the university’s administrative offices blocking entrances and disrupting functions

• Encouraging human chains to block lecture halls, leading to physical altercations with other students.

• Using social media to spread awareness but also engaging in personal attacks against university officials.

• Encouraging chalk protests on campus, some of which escalated to graffiti vandalism.

The administration viewed Ahmed’s actions as a violation of student conduct citing:

1. Disrupting the educational environment – Blocking staff and students from academic activities.

2. Encouraging intimidation – Some protest messages included threatening language and targeted harassment

3. Property defacement – While Ahmed did not personally engage in vandalism her encouragement of public chalk protests led to spray painted messages on campus buildings.

This case sparked intense debate over the limits of free speech and student activism While Ahmed’s supporters argued that her protest was a justified response to systemic injustice, opponents maintained that activism should not come at the expense of campus order and academic integrity 

The Harvard Model Congress debate mirrored real-world discussions about how far student activism should go before it crosses the line into disruptive or unlawful behavior

⸻

Final Thoughts

Both cases at Harvard Model Congress the African energy resolution and the prison divestment protests highlight pressing global challenges The energy debate forces policymakers to reconcile economic needs with sustainability, while the free speech case raises important questions about activism, justice, and institutional accountability

As these issues continue to shape policies worldwide it remains clear that the balance between progress, responsibility and ethics will remain at the heart of political decision making.