by Ryan Harding

Warning! What follows is a rather esoteric discussion of an ongoing debate centering on one early modern political theorist’s purported views on the value and function of a nation’s educational apparatus, seeing it a conduit to disseminate a specific brand of political or social dogma. Have I lost you? Trust me, this short discussion illustrates an important point—just bear with me.

On one side of this arcane debate, we have commenters who believe this unnamed political theorist seemed to see education as a social institution which can be easily politicized, and used to systematically inculcate a nation’s citizenry. Commentators on this side of the debate object to how this political theorist seems to envisage the institution of education as an arm of the state, which can be easily bent and used by the state as a means of brainwashing individual citizens. On the other side of the debate are a group of people (myself included) who see this political theorist, and the object of the theory he created, through a far less nefarious lens. That is, we see his motives as more noble than villainous. According to this lot, he sought to use the university as a means by which to bring about social accord, but not by disseminating a particular brand of political theology. Rather, by promoting and cultivating knowledge and understanding conducive to the common good—the curriculum taught by the university should transcend local politics and set its sights on creating an informed and socially aware citizenry.

Both sides seem to converge over one point in particular: that the university sits at an important crossroads and wields an inordinate amount of power because of it.

Without getting too in depth about how a university’s curriculum should look, or saying something which might inadvertently trample on academic freedom (something of which I am a staunch and unyielding proponent), I think what is important to draw from this debate is that the university, because of its function, is uniquely situated to lead the charge in the promotion of social change (for the better, I hope).

Read the rest of this entry »

by Angie Crone

As this year’s 17th conference of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Durban, South Africa, resulted in yet another stand-off among today’s leading nations, there are plenty of reasons to share in the embitterment and despair shadowing the climate change community. And while the Durban discussions did lead to a few positive outcomes –the Green Climate Fund and a sustained forum for discussing the issue, for example—the conference, unsurprisingly, was another failure of the global community to come to an agreement of how to slow the heating of the planet. The conference did, however, heed a rather constructive lesson: the climate change issue exceeds the realms of the climate community. This isn’t necessarily a newsflash, of course, but it brings into focus a new question: who is equipped to handle the climate crisis?

In a recent New York Times article, Mary D. Nichols, chairwoman for California’s Air Resources Board, poignantly stated, “Progress is going to come from the bottom up, not the top down.” The proactivity of regional climate commitments such as the Midwest Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord and the Northeast’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative which incorporate public stakeholders, private business, non-governmental organizations, and individuals have shown that bottom-up strategies are well-positioned to make meaningful contributions in combatting climate change. Additionally, industry specific agreements have been instrumental in identifying and mitigating their own contributions to the increasingly unpredictable climate. 

Let’s consider the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC).  The ACUPCC has emphasized the importance of higher education taking a new lead by preparing for and responding to impacts and implications of climate change that include unprecedented effects on infrastructure, ecosystems, energy and water supplies, food production, national security, and people’s livelihoods.  With the US Census Bureau reporting that there are 4,495 higher education institutions in the United States and with college enrollment having increased 38% between 1999 and 2009, the ACUPCC has a unique opportunity to develop cutting edge solutions and best-practices in the fight against climate change.

Read the rest of this entry »

by Kelly Wenner

A recent report developed by the Higher Education Climate Adaptation Committee, convened by the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC), evaluated how colleges and universities are preparing for a changing climate through a variety of components. The report, Higher Education’s Role in Adapting to a Changing Climate, released in March 2011, looked at characteristics of colleges including their curricula and education, research, operations, and community engagement activities. The report provided an overview and examples on what colleges should be doing to engage students and manage risks in their own campus communities to become more resilient in the face of current and future climate change.

While higher education leaders have taken leadership roles in climate mitigation, they must now take a stance on climate adaptation. Mitigation involves preventing climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  Adaptation is for preparing for and responding to the impacts of climate change.  Changing climate conditions are already impacting campuses east and west, north and south.  At the 2011 ACUPCC Climate Leadership Summit nearly every campus representative attending reported climate change impacts to their campuses. Flooding damaged colleges in upstate New York and Vermont; roof collapses from snowfall halted college operations in Washington, D.C.; and drought concerns and erosion from sea level rise affected colleges in Atlanta and California respectively. These types of climate change- oriented impacts create real safety and health hazards for a campus and its inhabitants.

The report highlighted four different areas through which colleges and universities need to approach climate change adaptation, and offered a variety of examples of what campuses are doing to promote climate change mitigation and adaptation.  The four areas are curricula, research, operations and infrastructure, and relationships with local communities.  College campuses are unique in these efforts because they offer knowledgeable manpower with a mass of committed students willing and excited to contribute to any endeavors. The report concluded with suggestions of what campuses should consider when planning for future climate adaptation efforts.

by Beth Gray

Supply chain management is an important element of any business.  Dr. Robert Handfield, Professor of Supply Chain Management at North Carolina State University’s Poole College of Management, notes that until recently, “few businesses understood, much less managed, the entire chain of activities that ultimately delivered products to the final customer.”  It is more common in recent years, however, that businesses are paying much more attention to their supply chains.  With the increasing awareness of the importance of corporate social responsibility initiatives, supply chains are not only being “managed,” but are also becoming more environmentally friendly. 

Institutions of higher education are incredible consumers of goods.  In most cases, these “goods” – everything from toilet paper to food and from ink cartridges to dorm furniture – come from outside vendors.  The environmentally-conscious university has to consider the methods used to create these products and the environmental impact of transporting them from manufacturer to end user when evaluating its own environmental impact.  In addition, the waste created from these goods must be considered.  Many colleges and universities are addressing the entire life-cycle of goods and services in order to create more sustainable supply chains.  Rutgers University, for example, has developed a comprehensive, “holistic” approach to supply chain management that is driven by both good and effective use of university funds and the university’s stated responsibility to the environment. 

Read the rest of this entry »

by Beth Gray

Recently, a coworker who is also an American Public University (APU) student (as many of our employees are) sent me a link to a YouTube video that her professor posted as part of that week’s assignment.  The video, produced by The Story of Stuff Project and narrated by Annie Leonard, is 20 minutes in length and provides a somewhat scathing look at the life cycle of our “stuff.” 

Through the use of basic yet effective animations, Leonard describes in accessible terms how all of our stuff comes to be and what happens when we are finished with it.  Through the five steps of the materials economy (extraction, production, distribution, consumption, and disposal), our stuff requires tremendous resources, natural and human.  Along the way, the process harms many of the parties involved.  During the extraction process, for example, people living in the places where the first resources are culled often lose the lands and natural materials on which they have relied for generations.  Because their resources are lost, some 200,000 people a day (worldwide) move from environments that had previously sustained them for generations to cities in search of work, often finding it in the factories that are making stuff from the resources taken from their lands.  During the production process, workers are subjected to many harmful chemicals that are used to create the stuff.  At the same time, working conditions in many of the factories producing our stuff leave much to be desired. 

Even the consumer, who is the driving force behind the manufacturing of this stuff is harmed.  The toxins that go into making the stuff impact those who buy and use these items.  Leonard uses the phrase, “toxins in, toxics out” to make the point that many of our products are actually toxic to us.  Through all of this, the environment takes the most consistent abuse, however.  The loss of vast quantities of natural resources, toxins emitted into the environment, and the irresponsible disposal of most items leaves our planet quite vulnerable, according to Leonard.

Read the rest of this entry »