Rick Clugston
welcomed everyone and asked each person to say a few words of introduction
about themselves.
Peter Blaze Corcoran
gave a general introduction to the consultation. He explained that the eventis was called a
consultation with the expectation that everyone present would serve as a
consultant. Peter also stated that some
of the papers presented during the consultation would appear in an upcoming
joint issue of the International Journal of Sustainability in Higher
Education and Higher Education Policy.
Arjen Wals: “Sustainability in Higher Education: From
Doublethink and Newspeak to Critical Thinking and Meaningful Learning” [PAPER]
The opportunity
to look critically at sustainability sounds inherently positive, but in higher
education it must be looked at pedagogically.
The hope is to
sensitize people on issues that emerge when you try to educate them around
sustainability. Orwell’s cautionary
novel, 1984, provides a parallel for
the emerging issues:
1.
Erosion of meaning (“newspeak”)
Non-terminology
– all is in black and white
Sustainability
can be made to mean everything, but when something means everything, it ends up
meaning nothing in the end
2.
Removal of ambiguity (“doublethink”)
Unification
of opposites (“sustainability of growth”)
Emphasizing
recycling can mean lack of emphasis on reducing
3.
Narrowing choice (“thought police”)
Prescribing sustainability and the road
that will get us there
Vantage points
of environmental education: Continuum between open and closed learning process:
predetermined, prescribed, closed vs. discovered, self-determined, open; and
continuum between authoritative bureaucracy and participatory democracy.
Sustainability
can serve as a catalyst for educational reform. Many universities still need to be educated about
sustainability. Thinking needs to be
based on conflict and debate – not simply reproducing old ways of
thinking. Integrating sustainability
pre-supposes the re-thinking of institutional missions.
“No use crying
over vague definitions” – instead, bring the community together to start
discussing and deciding what sustainability means to that specific
community. There is no universal remedy
(formula) for programmatic/curriculum reconstruction. Need to explore alternative ways of learning.
Programming
sustainability demands didactical re-orientation. Many issues don’t initially seem to relate to the environment
(particularly to students), but on deeper look, they do.
There is a need
to set standards without standardizing; we need standards, but who do we
involve in setting them? Critical
questions arise with regard to content, outcomes, process, and standards.
Education for
sustainability and the creation of space:
Question:
Bioregional notions of sustainability (vs. absolute definition) – The notion
that what is appropriate for specific universities will vary can be equally
problematic when it leads to relativism.
AW: Autonomous
development that is sensitive to parameters is needed. Standards for quality and assessment are
necessary… but whom do we involve in doing this? There is a danger of relativism.
Question: How to
reconcile call for standards with the prevalent “less is more” idea?
AW: So often
standards are about extrinsic inspections, punishment and reward.
Discussion: Does
the presence of reward = the presence of punishment? Not necessarily.
Question: The
term standardization can be used with reference to an individual student and/or
for an institution. Can the time frame
of evaluation be expanded so that the reflection and integration after the
“official” learning years could be measured?
AW: It is like
planting a seed – it is hard to “prove” that the later actions/thoughts are the
result of the earlier seeds. What you
can’t measure does exist.
The elements of international
declarations and policies for sustainability in higher education provide a
sense of the many factors that determine what makes a sustainable
university. There is a tendency to
consider sustainability an end point – perhaps a better vision would be to see
it as a multi-branched continuum.
The declarations
and policies share several themes in common:
International
declarations’ major thrusts:
GAPS:
Institution
specific policies’ major thrusts:
GAPS:
Issues and
further research:
The branches of
the multi-branched continuum towards sustainability may twist and turn and even
break off with time. There is no direct
path to sustainability, but it is possible/necessary to ID themes and
priorities.
Question: Do all
of the declarations deal with the ecological aspects of sustainability?
TW: The issues
that spanned all the declarations were the environmental issues. Some of the declarations had some other
elements, but the environment was the over-arching theme.
Discussion: The
problem of accountability after signing the declarations.
– Mike Shriberg
is doing his dissertation on assessing the U.S. Talloires Declaration signatories’
current activities.
– It was
suggested that it might be more effective to change the tone of accountability
to “sharing” instead of reporting.
– Comparison of
international treaty signing and institutional declaration signing.
– Use stronger language
to require signatories to report back on their activities.
– Need
suggestions, not prescriptions.
– Report
failures on a scheduled basis, with intention of improvement.
Question: Can we
identify those institutions that haven’t signed but have made progress in
sustainability?
TW: This is
addressed in Tarah’s paper. There is a
parallel between three different types of campuses that determine where they
are at and why. Based upon this information, one can develop a suggested course
for action. Of those who signed: some have not implemented change; others are
trying, but facing obstacles.
Question: Is
there much that talks about process of implementation?
TW: The
international declarations do not contain much discussion of process. Among the institutional policies, about one
third address process. There appears to
be a growing movement to discuss the challenge of implementation.
Hans-Peter
Winkelmann stated that one should not underestimate these declarations. It is not fair to compare the declarations
and charters because they all have different backgrounds. We must look at all of these declarations
with point of view that takes into account their age – most of them are quite
old. We should maintain sense of
no-competition, cooperation, working together towards same goal, not to have a
global declaration, but to work together in different ways.
Wynn Calder
added that the declarations are a vehicle.
Not all of them put enough emphasis on socio-economic issues, and
perhaps there should be some effort to re-visit these declarations to update
them in light of this. Or one could
look to the Earth Charter, which embodies a broader vision, as a document that
universities could embrace (some U.S. c/u are considering doing so).
Tony Cortese
explained that the Talloires Declaration was an attempt to get university
presidents to stand up and say that these things need to be addressed. Yes, there are many presidents who will not
sign declarations, and some of the most successful schools are ones that have never
signed but have gathered great support for sustainability.
Nan Jenks-Jay
shared that at Middlebury they are working to address how universities can
sign/endorse/ support the Earth Charter. The language of endorsement needs to
be crafted so that the EC is made relevant to higher education institutions –
packaging and timing are important. (Nan is working with ULSF staff in crafting
such a statement for Middlebury.)
Arjen suggested
that the more people that sign a declaration, the more suspicious we should be
– these declarations are political and when many sign, one is forced to wonder
if it is PR, or if the declaration is weak.
Not signing can be just as important because it raises discussion and
provides areas for exploration and activism on campus.
Tarah concluded
by saying that signing is not the end-all/be-all, these declarations are one of
many vehicles to sustainability.
Tarah
Wright's paper will be published in the summer 2002 joint issue of the
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education and Higher
Education Policy.
PLENARY SESSION II: A broad review of the methodology and results
of campus environmental assessments in North America and Europe, and an
analysis of existing campus assessment tools.
What do these instruments tell us about what is essential to
sustainability in higher education? How
much do these instruments actually assess what sustainability is? How useful are they in helping institutions
move toward sustainability?
The Auditing
Instrument for Sustainability in Higher Education (AISHE) is one method for
assessment of sustainability in higher education. AISHE contains six basic principles; two examples are:
1. Focus on education
Educate students with a focus beyond
greening the campus, because they will eventually be going into the work world.
2. Inspiring, not limiting
Think about what could be done, not just
what should be done
Five stages of
EFQM method (an organization can be in one of five possible stages):
This method
seeks to combine the efforts of many, and can be envisioned as a key ring that
combines the keys of many people’s ideas and efforts.
An institution
using AISHE would have individuals rank their institution on 24 criteria, then
bring them together to discuss their assessments. After discussion, they would choose which items to focus on, and
which to set aside. Next they would
seek consensus on a general score for each criterion, then discuss where the
institution wants to move on the chosen criteria. The group would conclude by prioritizing the chosen criteria.
Preliminary
tests are being run on AISHE this spring, and it should be ready for use later
this year.
I.
The ideal
tool:
·
Identifies
and evaluates important issues
·
Goes beyond
eco-efficiency into long term strategies
·
Comprehensible
·
Calculable/Comparable
(not necessarily quantitative)
·
Focus on
Processes (how?) – reward structures
·
Motivations
(why?) – Ethical obligation? Compliance?
II.
Current
Tools
[See
paper]
Common
Strengths:
·
Process-oriented
·
Strategic
planning
·
Gathering
of baseline data
Weaknesses:
·
No way to
make comparisons
·
Motivations
overlooked
·
Operational,
eco-efficiency focus
III.
Lessons
Learned
·
Decreased
throughput (energy, water, material flows)
·
Incremental
& systemic progress at the same time (starting recycling program while
developing zero waste goal)
·
Sustainability
education as a core function (core part of curriculum, internships, practicums)
·
Cross-functional
reach (inter-disciplinary, other departments and offices on campus)
·
Cross-institutional
action (community engagement, land stewardship, other schools, etc.)
IV.
Unresolved
Issues
·
Can there
really be a “Universal Tool”? Would
that be desirable? Necessary? Possible?
·
Resistance
to rankings. Might it not be good for
students to know?
Michael
Shriberg's paper will be published in
the summer 2002 joint issue of the International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education and Higher Education Policy.
The
focus of this research project is on actual assessments of campuses over the
past ten years with the goal of documenting what has been done and making that
information accessible to others. This
involved an anecdotal survey, outlining best practices, and offering guidelines
for campus assessments. Currently there
is no database or assessment of campus assessments.
Project scope:
16 categories (some have many qualitative elements), over 140 indicators
Project status:
256 assessments evaluated, database is almost complete and the paper will be
finished this summer.
Preliminary
findings:
Question:
Concerning the conflicts and trade-offs associated with ranking, college
presidents put so much value on US New & World Report rankings. Isn’t there value in adding an environmental
element to that scale? Do the cons
outweigh the pros?
Discussion:
– Sentiment
against ranking because a high ranking tends to simply indicate wealthy
students and alumni (annual giving).
– Ranking
usually misses important factors, and rarely illuminates what is unique about a
campus. What is key is assessing
student demand for eco-socially responsible schools.
– There is a
difference between providing more (descriptive) information about a school and
doing traditional “ranking.”
– Assessment can
be a marketing tool intended for prospective students and their parents to use
in choosing a school.
– The term
“labeling” was proposed as an alternative to “ranking” – some sort of “Green
Seal.”
– The issue
remains of how to make information available to parents and prospective
students in a digestible consumer format.
– Schools could
produce an annual environmental report and make it accessible to parents &
students.
– The issue of
qualitative information vs. quantitative information was raised.
– Evaluating
quantitative data can still be subjective – qualitative data can then be much
more valuable.
– Certification
or accreditation (using the models of shade grown coffee and sustainably
harvested wood) was suggested. However,
this could lead to inaction because it may be perceived as the end point.
– The question
remains how to capture qualitative measurement – there are models
available.
– Labeling
reflects the values of the labeler, and so in effect turns quantitative into
qualitative.
– These issues
have a parallel in the socially responsible investing field, which struggles to
determine whether a corporation is sustainable or not.
For more
information on the CEA review, contact Dr. Glasser at harold.glasser@wmich.edu.
PLENARY SESSION III: A review of "case studies" and
"best (and not so best) practices," and a consideration of factors
for success and failure.
Key Concepts:
Brief history of
higher education was presented.
Changes and
adaptations helped the U.S. develop into a global leader:
·
Liberal
arts tradition + German research university = tension
·
Innovative
science and technology driven by WWI and WWII
·
Success of
the German research model for institutional research and policy
University
modeling sustainability (society and biosphere). Areas of overlap increasing over time (elements moving towards
each other):
The numbers of
people graduating every year is huge, which is both overwhelming and full of
opportunity.
Best Practice
Focus
Common themes of
Emory University and the New Jersey Higher Education Partnership for
Sustainability (NJHEPS):
Middlebury
historically has a longtime commitment to excellence in environmental education
(35 year old program). Middlebury’s understanding
of environmental education has broadened with time.
Success due to:
Three ways to
think about Middlebury College:
1. Institutional commitment at a senior
level:
Budget,
positions, Environmental Council is in place.
Environmental
Council small grant program – takes the burden of failure off individuals.
Access
to highest administrative people on campus.
All
environmental work is part of strategic plan process.
2. Ongoing programs (many tied to student
research):
Energy
reduction.
Leftover
food composted.
Recycling
program and facility.
Being
recognized as a regional/state player and consumer.
Ideas
emerging from within many different arenas of campus.
Standardized
campus audits.
3. New initiatives:
Higher
3rd party compliance consultant team.
Electric
vehicles available on campus.
Working
with Vermont’s Clean Cities program.
Sustainable
issues lunches with many different (surprising) people showing up.
Recognition from
external and high-level sources speaks volumes.
Question: Why
are staff and administrators so interested and engaged?
NJ-J: Vermont
attracts a certain kind of people – it’s all about values. People everywhere like to know they have the
ability to make a difference in their place of work and/or study. Middlebury celebrates that the value system
is good and enables opportunities to happen.
A lot of stories are shared, more so than statistics.
For more
information about Middlebury’s environmental programs, go to www.middlebury.edu/~enviroc.
In the 1980’s
the university began to develop an environmental focus. In the later 1990’s 100+ faculty gathered
several times to revise 150+ courses in order to implement a sustainability
element.
The Center for
Sustainable Environments is an umbrella organization within the university for
research, outreach/engagement, curriculum, and operations.
Barriers (in
society and at NAU):
For more information
on NAU Ponderosa Project, go to http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/ponderosa/.
Chris Uhl – Pennsylvania
State University
It can be
helpful to think of the campus as an ecosystem. In efforts to promote change at PSU, sustainability is expressed
in terms of values.
Five
Sustainability Principles:
1. Respect Life
2. Live Within Limits
3. Value the Local
4. Account for Full Costs
5. Share Power
The Penn State
Indicators Report (2000) took ten different sectors on campus and asked what
sustainability would be in that sector (such as energy, water, built
environment, community…). Most
universities are a perfect reflection of society in their use of energy, water,
etc.
We strive to
educate by making the issues real. Make
invisible ecological dependencies visible. For example: post a sign in the
elevator stating that the electricity necessary to ride the elevator once
requires 1/2 cup of coal.
History:
A group of
faculty and students came together and drafted a mission for Penn State entitled
Green Destiny, which contains one page for each category, stating the perceived
problem, solution and goal. The mission
attempts to work with a long-range vision of 20 years or 50 years. After the mission was written, the group
called all campus leaders (100+ people) and asked them to look at it and give
feedback. The feedback was compiled and
found to be mostly supportive. Then the
mission went to faculty senate and was signed by the president just last week.
But the mission
is only part of the process – what are the next steps?
One goal is get
the commitment of faculty and students to reduce the science building’s
ecological footprint. Building-specific
policies for paper, energy, supplies, etc., have been developed. The
idea has emerged
of adopting the building as a model for the rest of campus once
Question: How do
you set the boundaries/indicators for evaluating ecological footprint?
CU: Don’t obsess
over small things (eg., chalk), focus on big items.
For more
information on the work at Penn State University, go to www.bio.psu.edu/greendestiny.
Forum for the Future is the leading UK sustainable development charity. It’s mission is to accelerate the building of a sustainable way of life by taking a positive solutions-oriented approach, a