With the University’s endowment sinking faster than a cement-shoed gangster in Lake Michigan, the administration is going to be forced to make some significant budget cuts. It should start with a position that should never have existed in the first place: the office of the director of sustainability.
I am sure that Ilsa Flanagan, who was appointed in November, is a fine director of sustainability. But that the administration now considers environmental sustainability part of its mission is a blatant violation of the Kalven Report––the same document that President Zimmer uses as justification for some of the administration’s more unpopular decisions.
Now, Zimmer’s affection for the Kalven Report has earned it a bit of dislike among many groups of students. (Had he tried to use it to justify the switch to the Common Application—God knows how, but I’m sure he could have done it––we probably would have seen students burning the report in front of the Administration Building like Vietnam-era draft cards.)
But the report is in fact a remarkable document––one that espouses a philosophy of education that few other universities have articulated so well or defended so forcefully. That philosophy, in a nutshell, is this: Universities are homes to ideas, but they do not themselves hold ideas. The purpose of elite, liberal-arts universities like the U of C is to nurture ideas of every type, including ideas that directly contradict each other. That’s why the U of C has simultaneously been home to people like Milton Friedman (a raving capitalist) and the faculty of the Humanities Division (raving left-wingers).
But in order to encourage such diverse thought, the U of C itself cannot take positions on controversial issues. To do so discourages the very type of individual inquiry that is paramount to the U of C’s purpose.
Of course, this does not mean that the U of C should be so morally blind as to follow IBM’s example and sell punch-card machines to Hitler. But the issue at hand has to be extreme, the Holocaust being the usual comparison. And the University has to be able to take action that can substantially affect the issue––otherwise, its gestures will only be symbolic, which is the very type of action the Kalven Report prohibits.
We could argue about whether the destruction of the environment is tantamount to genocide. An economist might be able to produce figures showing that air pollution, for example, has led to millions of deaths.
But such research would hardly be definitive. Indeed, it would be the very type that is supposed to be debated and argued (sometimes ad infinitum) in the academy.
And in any case, I doubt that putting a helpful “Eco-Tip of the Month” on the University’s sustainability webpage will make Al Gore declare victory in the war against climate change.
(“Running low on Flex Dollars? When you go to Hutch, you can save 10 cents on a drink by bringing a reusable bottle or mug.”)
Yes, it’s nice to see that the dorms saved a little bit of electricity during Battle of the Bulbs. And I suppose it probably can’t hurt that various new buildings on campus are being designed to high standards of energy efficiency, since energy-efficient buildings will save the University money in the long run.
But the fact remains that there is nothing the University can do by itself to substantially alleviate climate change. All that such efforts will do is divert money from research budgets, faculty salaries, and student financial aid, as well as alienate faculty and students who share the belief that the environment is not in danger—an incorrect belief, in my view, but not one worth institutionally condemning.
In the past, the University has realized this, and has never made a serious effort to put the environment first. When one environmental group released a “report card” of American universities’ sustainability efforts in 2007, the U of C earned a D+. Later that year, when the University signed the Illinois Sustainable University Compact, campus activists heralded it as a turning point––but a closer reading of the agreement shows that the University only agreed to goals that are so vague as to be nearly meaningless, such as pledging to “promote more sustainable transportation options” or “reduce carbon emissions on campus.” Reduce carbon emissions by how much?
The University should return to this prior paradigm. It is not the U of C’s role to save the world—it is the U of C’s role to educate the world. And when students and faculty go to lobby Congress and the U.N. for stronger environmental protections, I’ll be there.
Andrew Alexander is a fourth-year in the College majoring in chemistry. He is a member of the Maroon Editorial Board.
Deliberately provocative and useless column.
this is stunningly stupid
I agree w/ ajs: stunningly stupid
so do i. this is a waste of ink.
agreed- you beautifully contradict yourself- what a load of crap!
Andrew,
Rather than point out its contradictions (they’re too much fun to find on your own, a game we can perhaps call "editing"), after much deconstruction of your stream-of-consciousness editorial, I have discovered an argument. It is thus: "The University has to be able to take action that can substantially affect the issue." Since, however, you believe sustainability (and its office) to be more symbolic than practical, it thus falls under the "Kalven Report" rubric of a no-no. I shall now engage said argument.
What is sustainability in general? The boogeyman, Al Gore’s brain-droppings, the Allies in World War II (your analogy), whatever you want it to symbolically represent. What does sustainability at the University of Chicago practically do? Hmm, perhaps a more useful question. It administers and systematizes efficiency projects in the university. Whether through electricity, water, transportation, heating, behavioral change (e.g. "using a reusable bottle in Hutch", Battle of the Bulbs), etc., efficiency is that mundane "fifth fuel" that saves the university money. Yes, precious greenbacks. Don’t listen to those hippy-yippies, sustainability isn’t about educating us about the effects of the choices we make or other such liberal-pansy nonsense; no, it is the smartest and easiest way to make manly mad bank.
You rail against the behavioral projects (Eco-Tips, Battle of the Bulbs), yet, interestingly enough, those are projects that cost next to nothing and give back your investment in diamonds (or maybe just spades). Why then be against the most economically-strong of all sustainable investments? Indeed, perhaps what makes econ majors and (apparently) chem majors uneasy about "sustainability" investments is that they have this unfortunate potential to be interpreted as goody-goody, which, as most econ majors are taught, should be the opposite of profitable. But don’t let others’ opinions sway you: "sustainability" really means "mad-bank-ability". And for this theory-inclined university, I think money-matters are one of the few practical matters that matter.
As further poof (not to be confused with proof), even if the university become monstrously more efficient, as you correctly note, the change in consumption would not be enough to make any tangible (and conveniently undefined) effect on the climate of THE ENTIRE EARTH. Therefore, maybe, just maybe, the university has some other, ulterior, and probably quite sinister motive to enact such policies. Hm. It obviously can’t be that sustainability is only symbolic, because, well, the administration created the Sustainability Office and they seem to know the intricacies and implications of the dense and tomely Kalven Report better than lowly students (see: Past Administration Decisions). Rather, perhaps some veritable profit-mechanism-like-thought-process influences their decisions?
To conclude: please direct your attention to the practical results of sustainability, and not let your personal predilection for symbolism cloud your eyes to that veritable Mad Money Machine ™ some erroneously call "sustainability".
Out of every viewpoints column I have read this year, this has been by far the worst. Congratulations Andrew, you have single-handedly brought down the integrity of the Editorial Board.
Dear Andrew,
Hiring a Director of Sustainability does not threaten the cherished freedom of inquiry that brought me to this university. Your argument that the Nov. 17 appointment of a Director of Sustainability is a poor allocation of the university’s diminishing funds and a violation of the 1967 Kalven Report on the University ‘s Role in Political Social Action shows a misunderstanding both of the director of sustainability’s mandate and of the Kalven Report. As a four-year member of the Sustainability Council, I understand the role of sustainability efforts on campus.
As a second year I left my friends protesting for divestment from Darfur to spend hours poring over the Kalven Report, which was cited to justify the university’s decision not to ensure that its endowment was not invested in companies which do business in Darfur. The Report comes out “against the university taking collective action or expressing opinions on the political and social issues of the day, or modifying its corporate activities to foster social or political values.” It argues that such actions would limit the university’s “extraordinary environment of freedom of inquiry” which enables its mission of “discovery, improvement, and dissemination of knowledge.”
Before I delve into those important issues, let me address your initial assertion that the Director of Sustainability should be scrapped because the University is short on funds. The Director of Sustainability’s first order of business is to make university energy and resource consumption more efficient (cheaper). The Director, Ilsa Flanagan, comes from LaSalle Bank.
You contest that sustainability efforts “divert money from research budgets, faculty salaries, and student financial aid.” Clearly, adding any full-time, paid position will somehow divert resources. But you fail to acknowledge that the new position adds value to the university even beyond the conservation-related savings it will achieve.
Students, academics, facilities and dining services currently engage in sustainability initiatives that foster learning and knowledge creation, improve and diversify student life, and reduce university operational costs. With administrative leadership, the university can better coordinate these efforts and inform the community about them. The Director enhances learning opportunities and cross-campus synergies in the same way that the Chicago Studies program nurtures links between the Community service center, the Office of Civic Engagement, and Chicago-focused academic opportunities.
Further, the process of defining and realizing the University’s ideal relation with the natural world in the most efficient, innovative, and collaborative way is a huge learning process for students, faculty, and staff.
Which brings me to the Kalven report.
The Report “conceives its function as principally that of providing a point of departure for discussion in the University community.” So lets heed its core values and depart for discussion. I believe our institutional mission encompasses not only the creation of academic, research-based knowledge, but also the kinds of institutional and experiential knowledge that the Director of Sustainability enables.
The university builds things. It consumes resources. It decides how and justifies why. The Report concedes that such decisions require the university to “act as an institution in its corporate capacity,” but prohibits it from taking decisions to further “political and social values.” But the actions the university takes reveal its values. To deny that denies the capitalist idea that exercising our consumer choice is a liberty that asserts our agency in the world and affects markets.
Our consumption, operations, and construction decisions manifest personal, aesthetic, economic, political, and social values even when they are made behind closed doors rather than in transparent and inclusive deliberative processes like the ones that Flanagan facilitates.
Sustainability is about looking critically at the way we use resources now and deciding whether that will leave us with the kind of world, neighborhood, or university we want in the future. Each university member cannot live in a bubble and enact his or her own vision of how to do that; in these decisions, our university must act as a single entity.
We might not all agree whether the world is in dire environmental straights, or what our responsibility is in changing the situation. But Flanagan isn’t single-handedly diagnosing the state of the world or defining our ideal future; she’s facilitating the discussion and channeling it to action. She’s helping students, staff, and faculty collect data, define base-lines, and complete long term cost-benefit analyzes to understand the environmental impacts of the choices we make as a university.
Drinking out of recycled cups or researching in buildings designed with their long-term performance in mind won’t stop an intellectual from claiming that global warming is a farce. If we have such a researcher on campus I’d be thrilled to host him on an Earth week panel.
At a time when anything can be pegged as “green,” the University of Chicago, with this tradition of rigorous inquiry, is uniquely positioned to advance the debate and to model uncommon solutions to what it really means to be “sustainable,” both in theory and in practice.
Best,
Kelin
P.S. Other commentators: it’s not helpful to call someone stupid. If you disagree, say why…and own it. If you’re an anonymous detractor using playground insults, you kind of invalidate your own opinion.
P.P.S. I tried to get this published, but it was deemed too late. I understand the timeliness consideration, but also, apparently the Maroon won’t publish anything over 400 words in response to a previously published piece. I think that policy inhibits meaningful debate.
I am strongly for Andrew’s column.
Actions like purchasing wind power for 10% of our energy at twice(!) the going market rate is hard to justify on business grounds. Chris Keeting, director of residence halls stated that with the purhcase, “We’re making a statement” and Dean Gutman stated “Its designed to provide support to alternative energy, Gutman said. Its highly symbolic.”
http://blogs.chicagomaroon.com/2006/2/17/university-enlists-wind-power-as-energy-alternative
Also, even though some good business practices have the side-effect of benefiting the environment and increasing sustainability, we shouldn’t label them as sustainability. After all, not investing any of the University’s capital in Darfur is a good business idea and we have no or close to no investments there. We don’t call this divestment – we call it good business practices.