On Sustainability and Higher Education- A Moral Challenge

Below is a letter to the editor that I wrote to our campus newspaper, the Earlham Word. In it, I argue for a moral stance on sustainability and environmental justice. The logic, though, I think applies to any institution of education and schooling.

The time has come for Earlham to make a principled, moral stand on issues of environmental justice and sustainability. We stand at the edge of history with mounting evidence that human-caused global climate change will dramatically alter our living world within our lifetime. How are we to respond to this clear and pressing concern? Our mission statement states that an Earlham education “… is carried on with a concern for the world in which we live and for improving human society. The College strives to educate morally sensitive leaders for future generations. Therefore Earlham stresses global education, peaceful resolution of conflict, equality of persons, and high moral standards of personal conduct.” It seems clear from this charge that our response to environmental problems must be, first and foremost, a moral response. This means several things. First, we cannot (and should not) slough the problem off to the scientists alone to let them deal with it. Environmental problems are human problems with our relationship to the natural world. We must understand both our natural systems and the socio-cultural factors that cause environmental problems. Second, our responses cannot merely be technical. That is, if our efforts center solely around recycling, better fuel economy, saving specific species, and buying organic, we have ignored the larger (and deeper) causes to our present situation. Third, our responses cannot be located solely in either the formal curriculum (the academic classroom) or the informal curriculum (everything we do outside of the classroom). A new general education “sustainability” requirement (formal curriculum) is not going to cut it any more than expecting the newly formed Environmental Responsibility committee to lead us out of the darkness (informal curriculum). In other words, while a moral stance on environmental justice and sustainability is, in some respects, simple to create- it will not be easy to do. It will require all of us to ask hard questions and wrestle with difficult problems that may make us uncomfortable in a variety of ways.

So how do we respond? We have some recent examples to draw strength from. Our commitments to peace and diversity are, at their core, moral commitments. They are drawn from our identity as a Quaker institution as well as from a strong sense of social justice. And importantly, both have involved significant curricular and co-curricular investments from the College. When we make a principled, moral stance, we then cannot use the disciplining logic of economics to justify not meeting our obligations. For example, we have worked hard at divesting ourselves of companies and corporations who profit from activities we as an institution find immoral. We also have invested in a variety of diversity initiatives even though they represent an added “cost” to our budget centers. We do these things because they are, quite simply, the right things to do. Does this mean we ignore economic costs? Of course not. But when we start from a principled, moral stance, the onus is placed on the institution to justify itself when its actions do not meet up with its principles.

Where could this new stance lead? There are many possible avenues but I will offer one suggestion here in the hopes of creating campus dialogue on this critical issue. I believe the College ought to develop a coherent, integrated environmental program on campus that combines both curricular and co-curricular learning and practice. This new “Center for Environment and Sustainability” would be purposefully interdisciplinary and experiential, drawing together our disparate academic strands (environmental studies, environmental science, outdoor education) with the coordination of other co-curricular sustainability work taking advantage our institutional and community strengths (Miller Farm, Cope Environmental Center, Wilderness, Off-Campus programs, etc.) Explicit connections and relationships with both Facilities and the Office of the President would be essential. The center ought to become a place where the college can focus its environmental work- both academically and co-curricularly so that it would reach all members of the community, not just students and faculty within the existing environmental minors. I envision a function for the center that would encourage dialogue, practice, action-research, and interdisciplinary inquiry. A center such as this would require financial and structural commitments similar in size and scope to our peace and diversity commitments. The charge and purpose of the center could also grow and develop over time as the College continues to deliberate and live out this new moral stance on environmentalism and sustainability.

More important than the specific suggestion above, is that we, as a community, begin to have serious and significant dialogue as to how we are to respond, ethically, to the environmental challenges before us. It is important to note that this stance would not be to the exclusion or diminishment of other important social justice work. In fact, there are many intersections and alliances within the realm of “eco-justice” to issues of race, class, and gender.

Thoreau once wrote “moral reform is the effort to throw off sleep.” In the end, we each must ask ourselves if we are awake to the environmental challenges before us. We also must ask more of our institution. At its best, Earlham is a place that is not merely reflective of society at large but shines a light for others to follow. We stand at the edge of history. And, generations henceforth will judge us on how we, as Quakers, as a College, as citizens of the world, chose to act. Let us begin now in earnest.

The Death of Environmentalism- good riddance!

Yesterday, Michael Shellenberger spoke here at Earlham. I believe, in many ways, what I heard was the future not only of the "environmental" movement but the future of progressive politics as well. I have argued elsewhere for a new "eco-porgressivism" to emerge out of the late modern period that would supplant the problems shot through the current environmental movement- the romantic notions of "Nature", the elitism, the dualism between nature and culture, and the inability to bring humans into the equation when we think about environmental problem solving. This is best signified by the success (in battles) of the ESA- the endangered species act. This act has been used quite successfully to win many an environmental battle- but it loses the war- it turns off more people than it converts- and the debate becomes loggers vs spotted owls. Shellenberger sees this as well, particularly in light of global climate change, which blows any past environmental concern out of the water (pun intended). Here is what he had to say in the now infamous piece titled "The Death of Environmentalism":

"Our thesis is this: the environmental community's narrow definition of its self-interest leads to a kind of policy literalism that undermines its power. When you look at the long string of global warming defeats under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, it is hard not to conclude that the environmental movement's approach to problems and policies hasn't worked particularly well. And yet there is nothing about the behavior of environmental groups, and nothing in our interviews with environmental leaders, that indicates that we as a community are ready to think differently about our work.

What the environmental movement needs more than anything else right now is to take a collective step back to rethink everything. We will never be able to turn things around as long as we understand our failures as essentially tactical, and make proposals that are essentially technical."

In proclaiming the "death" of environmentalism, he of course is not advocating for the clubbing of seals. But he IS arguing that so long as progressive "greens" cede markets, individualism, aspirations, progress, and hope to the Right, we lose. If we cannot re-shape the debate such that it no longer pits anti-progress, anti-growth environmentalists against common-sense, pro-growth Joe Schmoe Republican (or Democrat for that matter), we lose. Check out his Appollo project. Read his article on the Death of Environmentalism. And then, dear progressive friend, ask yourself, isn't the definition of insanity continuing to do the same thing expecting a different result? If progressive greens keep down this road, we lose. The only way to affect policy is to be in power. The only way to be in power is to give people a sense of hope, empowerment, and trust that you have a better plan than the other guy. Telling everyone the world is going to end is stikingly similar to what those "radicals" on the far Right say, no? It's time to build a better mousetrap. R.I.P. environmentalism. Now, let's get to work.

No Planet Left Behind

The latest news on the environmental front continues to shock and amaze- fishing species at non-harvestable levels by 2048. This is added to everything else that points to climate change at epic levels in the not to distant future. Climate change is the ultimate trump card for environmentalists. It knows no politics, no national boundaries- it leaves no one untouched by its inevitability. When environmentalists talked about endangered species, people could find a way not to care. When they talked about pollution, people could move or fight for it to be Not In My Backyard. But this is different. Entire coast lines under water. The spread of diseases like Malaria. Super-hurricanes and more frequent violent weather patterns. Not to mention the possibility of millions of "ecological refugees." How is it that we continue to act as if contiuing the way we have is sufficient? Maxine Greene calls this the ways in which we are "mystified" in to inaction. Ecological voyeurism. It seems as if our society needs a Pearl Harbour or a 9-11 to evoke us into action. We need a clear and present danger. Yet, the world our children will inherit seems somehow less pressing, less urgent. It is the ultimate irony that our schools are focusing on "achievement scores" and "leaving no child behind" when the world we will be leaving to those very children remains outside our attention. It is re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic at the highest level. It is time to demand a new and bold strategy- one that is commensurate with the ecological challenge before us. I propose to call it the "Leave No Planet Behind" initiative. This would involve the fundamental restructuring of the way we go about schooling in the United States. All schooling will focus on how we can make our planet, our only home, a more livable and sustainable place. Following David Orr's suggestion that all education is, at its core, environmental education, I would argue that we can still learn all the "essentials" of readings, writing, and quantitative literacy through an environmental lens. Because it is fundamentally interdisciplinary, this new curriculum would ask students to explore the sciences, social studies, humanities, and arts in terms of our relationship with the natural world in the hopes of both thinking through technical solutions and social/spiritual re-calibration of our way of life. George Bsh has said that we cannot afford to leave even a single child behind. What he, and all of us have forgotten, is the world we will actually leave our children is the more ethical question. So, what would a Leave No Planet Behind platform look like? I can think of several things:

1. All schools (K-16) would be asked to work on and implement a sustainability plan for their facilities- to give students expereintial knowledge of how to address "footprinting" and energy conservation at the level of practice.
2. Curricullum would be purposefully integrated and thematic- no longer disjointed and unconnected. Environmental probelms stem from our inability to see relationships and interdependence- our curriculum needs to mirror the natural world. This "ecology of learning" is essential for the cultural shifts needed in our society as a whole.
3. Students would be engaged in an intensely "local:global" curriculum that seeks to present both local problems to be studied and solved as well as global perspectives to understand how citizenship and activism must resonate out to the larger global community. This might look like the creation of local gardens and food for the cafeteria as well as a renewed Natural History curriculum that helps students understand local flora, fauna, and ecosystems. But it would also entail an exploration of the role of the U.S. in the global economy, the problems and possibilities of globalization, and the struggles of the developing world.
4. Students would be connected to real world problems and problem solvers: scientists, politicians, city planners, artists- citizens who can give both the practicalities of social change as well as the inspiration and the hope that it can be done.
5. Colleges and Universities would re-tool their teacher education curriculum to prepare teachers for this work and give them the skills they need to facilitate this curriculum change in schools.

What, you say? Another thing to add on to schools along with all the other requirements? No. This trumps all others. There is no other important work to be done, period. The world that we live in is simply more important than any other pet project out there (be it literacy, multiculturalism, math and science, etc.). And, of course, as John Dewey would say, it is not a matter of either/or- it is both/and. We teach all of these things through our environmental committment. In the end, I do not want to leave the world we are making to my children. We are leaving every child behind because we are leaving our planet behind- as if our actions do not have an impact or that there is nothing left to do. Someone (Goethe?) said, "boldness has genius, power, and magic in it." It is time to finally "see" again