You claim that divesting from fossil fuels has yielded “mixed results.” What led you to this asinine conclusion? To continue, you write “divestment can have financial implications” blablabla . . . At the university level, I expect much more sophisticated and thoughtful work. What made you believe that making a deeply obvious statement that could only be outdone by announcing that the sky is blue and the earth is round could possibly lead to a passing grade? 

And then, (I know this section is long, it’s just that you submitted incredibly subpar work) you say, “divestment from specific causes may conflict with our responsibility under the University Act to remain ‘non-sectarian and non-political in principle.’” This isn’t a starving artist’s screenplay, it doesn’t need a plot twist. Why after hundreds of words of you rambling about your values would you then reveal that you’re not allowed to have any?  

3. If you weren’t going to give me clarity, you could’ve at least given me concision 

I saw online that it’s hip now to write tl;drs because the youth “ain’t reading all that” and I truly believe this is a phenomenal tool you should incorporate in your future work. In order to clarify what I mean, an example of a good tl;dr for this submission would be: “I want to continue to virtue signalling and calling myself a leader in yet another made-up sector while making unethical investment decisions because it is profitable without anyone calling me out on it because it is deeply annoying to me.” 

Normally, this would be the point where I would encourage you to come to my office hours, but I fear you may be too far gone. When the environment and people’s lives are on the line, taking your sweet time to schedule community consultations is irresponsible. 

Don’t ask me to regrade your work. 
Professor No Nonsense