Quite the commitment
Issue date: 9/16/08 Section: Opinion
For a man who said he wanted his first year as DePauw's president to be about listening, Brian Casey spoke loudly Monday when he signed the Presidents Climate Commitment. The impact of his decision is simply too immense for anyone to judge at this time. Only as the University embarks on its two-year path to develop a plan to reach climate neutrality will the community fully understand the effects of what DePauw has pledged.
The most tangible element of this commitment is that DePauw now must hold itself to specific standards and deadlines regarding its impact on the environment. Instead of some nebulous idea about environmental practices, we now have a clear-cut way of examining where we are as an institution in terms of sustainability. How we measure up to those standards will continue to be big news on campus for years to come.
But to some extent, how big this decision is depends on how DePauw approaches the requirements outlined in the commitment. If we only meet the minimum interim guidelines, students' everyday lives will likely not be impacted by it. But if we go all out in following the seven actions the commitment outlines, we may all be seeing a change at DePauw even before we fulfill the ultimate goal of climate neutrality.
While the vision of the Presidents Climate Commitment is definitely admirable, we find one component questionable: the incorporation of sustainability into the curriculum. If that simply means encouraging students to discuss the issue, then we're making good progress and we'rein favor of continuing down that path. But if it implies that DePauw must replace certain class offerings with sustainability-centered courses, that's taking the commitment too far. The University shouldn't force discussion of environmental concerns, as legitimate as they may be, into places where it doesn't belong. Classes such as professor Kelsey Kauffman's course on environmental activism are wonderful additions to DePauw's curriculum. However, encouraging physics classes to investigate the difference in velocity of a recycled or non-recycled bottle doesn't do much to enrich DePauw. We hope that the University's new focus on sustainability will expand and enliven intellectual discourse, not pigeonhole it.
The most tangible element of this commitment is that DePauw now must hold itself to specific standards and deadlines regarding its impact on the environment. Instead of some nebulous idea about environmental practices, we now have a clear-cut way of examining where we are as an institution in terms of sustainability. How we measure up to those standards will continue to be big news on campus for years to come.
But to some extent, how big this decision is depends on how DePauw approaches the requirements outlined in the commitment. If we only meet the minimum interim guidelines, students' everyday lives will likely not be impacted by it. But if we go all out in following the seven actions the commitment outlines, we may all be seeing a change at DePauw even before we fulfill the ultimate goal of climate neutrality.
While the vision of the Presidents Climate Commitment is definitely admirable, we find one component questionable: the incorporation of sustainability into the curriculum. If that simply means encouraging students to discuss the issue, then we're making good progress and we'rein favor of continuing down that path. But if it implies that DePauw must replace certain class offerings with sustainability-centered courses, that's taking the commitment too far. The University shouldn't force discussion of environmental concerns, as legitimate as they may be, into places where it doesn't belong. Classes such as professor Kelsey Kauffman's course on environmental activism are wonderful additions to DePauw's curriculum. However, encouraging physics classes to investigate the difference in velocity of a recycled or non-recycled bottle doesn't do much to enrich DePauw. We hope that the University's new focus on sustainability will expand and enliven intellectual discourse, not pigeonhole it.
Be the first to comment on this story