February 27, 2008

15 Comments »

1. I don’t understand how this doesn’t violate the Kalven Report. I disagree with sustainability as a private goal. My view of public policy is to max. private benefit with no consideration for social costs and to do this sustainability stuff threatens my view.

   Comment by Anon — March 4, 2008 @ 2:04 am

2. Isn’t everyone’s private benefit increased when society takes responsibility for its members actions?

   Comment by Greg Gabrellas — March 4, 2008 @ 3:59 pm

3. @Anon

   I’m really glad you brought this up because it made me finally go look up Kalven in all its glory, find it here:
   http://www.uchicago.edu/docs/policies/provostoffice/kalverpt.pdf
   (this is a really bizarre domain and putting site:www.uchicago.edu/docs/ into a Google Search may turn up some really interesting results)

   The document seems to say that the University should not attempt to be a political actor as it devalues the University’s standing as an entity of intellectual discussion (and its from standing from which the University derives its worth).

   Our basic conviction is that a great University can perform greatly for the betterment of society. It should not, therefore, permit itself to be diverted from its mission into playing the role of a second-rate political force or influence

   I don’t think hiring a (part time) sustainability coordinator would qualify as diverting the University from its mission.

   Now if the University were to totally alter its investment strategy, operating procedure (i.e. closing research labs or something), or educational philosophy in support of Sustainability, that would reflect a significant deviation from Kalvin. But this isn’t the case.

   I think you’re reading too much into a single hire. How does a part time employee threaten your view?

   Comment by Scott — March 4, 2008 @ 9:50 pm

4. I’m pretty sure Anon’s comments are in reference to the campus’s rejection of the divestment issue that infuriated people last year.

   Comment by Monica — March 5, 2008 @ 3:55 pm

5. @Monica.

   I guess I took Anon’s comment seriously whereas it may have been meant to be satirical, mocking the University for selectively applying Kalven.

   I believe the central issue deals with whether the University’s action sends a message or not. I believe the main reason Divestment did not happen was that the Trustees believed Divestment would mean the University, as a whole, would be taking a political stance by modifying its corporate functions. They believed that this action, or the precedent it set, would divert the University from its central mission of being an unbiased place of teaching and research.

   Hiring a sustainability coordinator does not send the same type of political message. It does say the University finds value in Sustainability and wants to work on this issue, but its more of an internal message and not something to be broadcast. Its not quiet as binary nor is it as dramatic of act. I think its a valid distinction although I also think that divesting in the case of Genocide (as defined by the US Congress) does not divert the University from its central mission. Nor does it create a slippery slope given the clear metric (i.e. how does the US Government define it).

   Comment by Scott — March 6, 2008 @ 12:07 pm

6. @Scott

   This isn’t satirical.

   1. I think that when the Univ. has a Sustainability Council with Univ. support and staff on board and is paying to have a coordinator of a particular social action (in this case sustainability) it is taking a stance on a social issue. I think that having a sustainability coordinator is equivalent to having a divestment coordinator. They also are considering hiring this person full-time.

   The Kalven Report states that the University cannot “take collective action on the issues of the day without endangering the conditions for its existence and effectiveness.” Hiring a coordinator with Univ. funds and giving Univ. sanction to the council fall under “collective action” and the worth of sustainability is an issue of the day that is not settled.

   2. I don’t understand the point about sending a message or not. To me its pretty clear that the University is sending a message that it is committed to sustainability and that it is an important issue - a message which I oppose. It may only be sending it to members of the UofC community but this is as much of a threat to academic freedom as broadcasting a view about genocide.

   3. On closing research labs. You stated that the Univ. will not be significantly altering policy or “closing research labs” but I doubt we would have a coordinator that takes no action and that doesn’t try to change Univ. policy. It may be small things like buying clean energy credits but academic freedom isn’t about the scope, its about whether a position or not has been taken.

   4. Divestment. If you don’t think that divestment violated the Kalven Report you probably won’t think this does either. I don’t know who has the final say on the Kalven Report (is it rich people on the Board?) and I don’t think they publish their reasoning which is unfortunate.

   Does anyone know who to see in Univ. Admin. if you feel your academic freedom is threatened?

   Comment by Anon. — March 7, 2008 @ 9:47 am

7. P.S. This sounds like the Univ. is taking collective action or is officially endorsing sustainability as important and valuable:

   “We would also like to acknowledge the work of the Sustainability Council and Student Government in encouraging the University to further support this important work on campus.”

   -Bill Michel, Assistant Vice President for Student Life and, Associate Dean of the College

   In order to say this doesn’t violate Kalven you need to claim that sustainability isn’t an issue of the day/political issue.

   Comment by Anon. — March 7, 2008 @ 9:54 am

8. Before I respond. I am so happy we’re having this debate! Thank you WordPress!

   Ok @Anon.

   1 - We have a Multicultural Center and a Community Service Center. We also support several charter school’s in the area and invest heavily in the community. Aren’t these similar examples of collective action on social issues?

   Having the University working on a social issue is not the same as the University taking a total stance on an issue like it would have with Divestment

   2 - The sustainability coordinator doesn’t have power over the Director of Facilities or the CFO. The Board does have this power (although its not used much). I don’t think you can compare the message each of these action’s send.

   3 - The University is already buying clean energy for the dorms! The purpose of the Sustainability coordinator will be to advice the University on how to make its activities on campus more sustainable. Its up to the Admins who made decisions to decide whether to follow this advice.

   I think the statement that ANY message threatens academic freedom is a bit of a stretch…

   4 - Technically it was a faculty committee which produced the Kalven report. I don’t believe the Board was involved in the decision to hire the Sustainability Coordinator.

   This decision was made by Vice President’s working within their own divisions. And of course they consulted with their higher ups and faculty, but the decision and initiative came from the VPs.

   PS - Sustainability is definitely a political issue. Why the University isn’t being hypocritical in this case is due to scale.

   The University takes action on social issues like promoting multiculturalism, supporting the neighborhood, and encouraging Community Service. But it does so at the divisional not the institutional level. That is the crucial difference between Divestment and hiring a Sustainability coordinator.

   But I will pass on your concern about the Kalven Report to Bill Michel and VP Geoff-Crews.

   -Scott

   Comment by Scott — March 7, 2008 @ 11:52 am

9. 1. Multicultural Center and a Community Service Center. Just because we have examples of other policies that *may* violate the Kalven Report doesn’t justify other instances in which we do violate the Kalven Report. I don’t know enough about either to determine if they are in violation.

   2. You’re right: the scale of the coordinator is smaller than the scale of Board action.

   3. Already buying cleaner is probably violating the Kalven Report.

   4. Are you claiming that Divisions within the University can take stances on political issues as long as the scale is small? I don’t see any textual support for this stance in the Kalven Report. I don’t see any mention of “divisions” or “limited scale” justifying political action being taken. Could you please quote a section of the report that says so? I do see support for banning action that is collective (in this case, it is: the University has Admins on the Council and is paying money for the coordinator) and is also political, which you concede. Maybe academic depts. can take positions because it would be a greater threat to academic freedom to ban them from taking positions than allowing them but I really doubt the Admin can take these positions.

   5. If the Dean of Students office created a pamphlet called “Why Abortion is Wrong” and had it available in its office and hired a coordinator to study the best way ensure that all students didn’t have abortions, would this action be justified? Its limited and divisional.

   Comment by Anon. — March 9, 2008 @ 1:03 pm

10. First, Bill has been contacted by someone (not sure if this is you) about the Sustainability report and Kalven and all of that. So he is aware.

    4. Can’t quote any section in the report. But the University is a decentralized place and this lack of central authority often means Divisions are free to make decisions as they see fit.

    Kalven would be an exception if it applied strictly to every level of the administration.

    5. The University isn’t saying “Sustainability is Good”, they’re simply hiring someone to work on it.

    I don’t think hiring a “Life Coordinator” would necessarily violate Kalven. That doesn’t mean its a good idea, I have no idea what the rate of abortion is on campus but I doubt its high enough to justify hiring someone part time.

    But lets hypothetically say that this was a real problem on campus, let’s say (HYPOTHETICALLY) that abortion was the number one form of Birth Control on campus. I would definitely say the University would be justified hiring someone to look with this situation.

    I imagine they’d probably do things like give talks about alternative methods of effective birth control, educate about the value of abstinence, and also probably advise the University to give out free condoms and free Plan B pills. Hmmm this is starting to sounds a lot like what the SCC already does…

    I really enjoy this debate. But I think you’re really confused on the change which occurred in the Administration. Before there was NO talk about Sustainability when making facilities decisions. Now there is some talk. These are not binary conditions, hiring someone to advise on this issue does not mean they will always be listened to.

    Comment by Scott — March 10, 2008 @ 11:29 am

11. A couple of comments in response to Anon.:

    President Zimmer, talking of his interpretation of the Kalven Report regarding divestment, noted the University’s “longstanding practice of not taking explicit positions on social and political issues that do not have a direct bearing on the University.” (http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/07/070202.darfur.shtml)

    What’s important about sustainability is that it does have a direct bearing on the University. This is because sustainability at its core is “intelligently dealing with energy, waste, water, etc.,” areas that the University has always dealt with as a physical institution. These are not “issues of the day,” as described in the Kalven Report, unless by “issues of the day” you mean “daily issues.”

    In terms of “max. private benefit,” sustainability allows the University to save money by becoming more efficient, whether in relation to energy, water, waste, etc. Lowering operating costs should appeal to any pecuniary person, without even thinking of the possible social “costs.”

    Your argument is that the University should “max. private benefit with no consideration for social costs.” However, such separation between private benefit and social cost is illusionary; “social cost” can simply be thought of as “the impinging of other people’s ‘private benefits.’”

    Take, for example, our campus waste removal program. Following your argument, not having to pay for waste removal services maximizes your private benefit (not only do you get to discard and not worry about your trash, but you don’t need to pay any extra money). However, after this policy would be enacted, you would start to feel the “social costs” of having trash festering unmanaged, that is, each University member would individually feel the negative repercussions of such policy. And so each University member would understand that by creating policy that is conscious of “social costs” they can also maximize their “private benefit.”

    Comment by Michael — March 10, 2008 @ 11:43 am

12. @ Michael

    I completely agree with lowering operating costs or maximizing net revenue but the goal of sustainability seems to imply that something else is being considered that is not merely revenue or cost. If the goal was to max. net revenue, then I imagine the coordinator and the Sustainability Council would be called the “Net Revenue Maximization Committee” and not have any consideration about sustainability. Things like battle of the bulbs is fine as long as the goal is to reduce electricity expenses.

    I don’t even know if the max. private benefit standard is appropriate anymore. For example, with regard to divestment, the University isn’t really involved with business in the Sudan so the loss of revenue by divesting is very small. However, the cost of not divesting was fairly large: students protested and disrupted the Admin building. Net private benefit may be maximized by divesting but the Univ. chose not to. Hypothetically, if an alum said “I will donate $50M if you divest” I have no idea if the Kalven Report would allow this. It certainly would max. net private benefit. This seems to indicate that an even more restrictive standard is being employed to interpret the Kalven Report.

    Private benefit to me is the total benefit to all members of the University.

    I am not against all environmental action. If there is certain environmental costs to Univ. affiliated people, then we should minimize them as long as the expenditure on minimizing is less than or equal to the benefit we receive in minimizing. However, if we are considered with things like global warming, then I have an issue with this. I imagine that we could increase our carbon emissions one-hundred fold tomorrow and have no noticeable effect on short term or long term global warming. I don’t know the percentage but can you come up with an estimate for University of Chicago carbon emissions divided by total world carbon emissions.

    Scott, I hope you don’t mind me not addressing you. Hopefully I will have time to carefully consider your recent post soon.

    Comment by Anon. — March 10, 2008 @ 2:24 pm

13. Look at the Sustainability Council and their proposed Sustainability Principles. http://sustainability.uchicago.edu/projdoc.html

    The Principles were rejected according to their Autumn 2006 meeting notes: “i. Last year’s goals were too big; principles of sustainability not adopted”
    http://sustainability.uchicago.edu/meetings.html

    I don’t know why or by who the principles were rejected by but I imagine that the Admin rejected them because they violated the Kalven Report. Do you personally think that the Principles violate the Kalven Report?

    Comment by Anon. — March 10, 2008 @ 2:28 pm

14. No worries Anon, respond when you’re ready! Sorry your last post got held, we use an anti spam technique which blocks posts with more than one hyperlink.

    If you’d like the avoid it, register for an account here: http://sg.uchicago.edu/blog/wp-login.php?action=register

    You’ll only be a subscriber but it will let you get around that limit.

    Comment by Scott — March 10, 2008 @ 2:49 pm

15. Hey Anon.,

    I agree, “the goal of sustainability seems to imply that something else is being considered that is not merely revenue or cost.” I think sustainability (as a concept) wants people (the University, students, faculty, people who live in the community, etc.) to be more aware of the various effects of their decisions, not just monetarily, but also social, environmental, community, global, and so on. I think of it just as one of the many results over the years of the slow acknowledgment that the University (as a physical as well as intellectual institution) affects many spheres of living (social, communal, env., etc.), and thus has some sort of responsibility over what those effects are.

    To give an example, I’ve heard stories of how poor relations between the University and the Hyde Park community in the 60’s were. Now-a-days the University understands that by improving relations with the community, that is, by putting money into the neighborhood (whether housing, grocery stores, etc.), it can improve not only the neighborhood’s living but also the living of the University-affiliated people residing there. A recent example of the University’s community responsibility was when the Coop grocery store closed, they were held responsible for the loss of jobs, and had to make sure that the former employees had ample opportunity to join the new grocery store that would take its place. It has become part of the town-University relationship of any university.

    You write, “Things like battle of the bulbs is fine as long as the goal is to reduce electricity expenses.” In the physical sense, that is what the Battle of the Bulbs is about. Turn off excess lights and so on. But it’s also about fostering an awareness of unnecessary energy waste. You could either look at that in terms of, “decreasing energy waste decreases unneeded expenditures,” or as “decreasing energy waste decreases the impact the environment,” or “having an awareness campaign that shows people through their own actions how easy it can be to decrease energy waste can help them see sustainable actions as possible, attainable goals that in the future they might continue (and maybe even spread to more people).” Regardless of the motive, the University benefits from the consequences. But, importantly, the University would benefit the most from the final motive as, not only does it instill some sense of wider awareness of responsibility in the students that is important for adulthood, but, it is the most likely to stay in students’ minds and spread. It serves the dual purpose of the University as a corporate entity and as a place of intellectual growth.

    Regarding the Kalven report, it was written at the height of the Vietnam War, and the University didn’t want to stick itself in the middle of the broiling debate raging between college students (and other protesters) and the U.S. government, both of which heavily supported the University. I think it’s a good idea to remember it’s simply a guideline for University action or inaction, and has some flexibility (and so it’s easy to interpret it to various ends). For example, President Zimmer recently went to Congress to ask for more funding for scientific research, joining a number of other universities and research institutes. (See http://maroon.uchicago.edu/online_edition/article/10003). Does that constitute an action fostering certain moral or political values? Sure, in the same sense that any action can be read to have some moral or political values. Moral=scientific research is important, political=the government should support such endeavors. Does that mean he shouldn’t being doing such a thing? Of course not, most people (but not all) would agree that research *is* important, and as our University is modelled after the German research institution (I mean it has the name right there in the title) it is something we should be doing. It is a part of the currently dominating culture that scientific research is considered key towards progress (another term considered important), and part of our politics that a large amount of scientific funding comes from the government.

    You are “not against all environmental action.” Rather, it is when we consider larger topics such as global warming that you take issue. But at what level do you draw the distinction? Community-level? City-level? National? You state, “I imagine that we could increase our carbon emissions one-hundred fold tomorrow and have no noticeable effect on short term or long term global warming.” It really depends on your definitions of “noticeable,” “short-term,” and, especially, “long-term.” I agree that compared to the total world carbon emissions, the University’s would not indeed be noticeable. From this we can draw the analogy of the Battle of the Bulbs: each member of the University may not contribute much to the energy wasted, but having a number of members change their habits noticeably cuts down on waste energy. In the same sense, one university may not contribute much, but having universities, businesses, government agencies, etc. all contribute would in this way would make a noticeable difference. Here is a list of the current members of the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) http://www.aashe.org/membership/members.php, which includes the Ivies Plus (MIT, Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, Stanford, etc.). Apparently U-Chicago is absent… it seems we’ve still got a fair bit to go.

    Comment by Michael — March 10, 2008 @ 6:06 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment