Search News


Browse Archives

News

Global Warming 'Teach-In'

January 17, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

At colleges, support for the green movement tends to come in the form of construction, pledges, investments and the like. Starting this month, you can add to that list "teach-ins."

As part of a national effort to promote environmental activism on campus, professors at more than 1,100 colleges have agreed to discuss issues relating to global warming in their classes on January 31 or take part in panels running throughout the day.

Focus the Nation, a project of the nonprofit Green House Network, is being organized on the macro level by a handful of recent college graduates with the help of professors and students who plan events on their campus. The initiative is based on the work of an economics professor at Lewis & Clark College.

At most participating campuses, pledges are coming from many professors -- in some cases 50 or more -- who are planning to modify their lectures, create shorter presentations or attend the panel discussions. Rather than planning evening rallies, professors are being asked to do the teaching during regular class hours.

“The concept is we don’t want these events to preach to the choir -- the people who would normally spend hours talking about global warming," said Alex Tinker, a spokesman for the initiative. "We're looking to get to the critical mass of students who aren't aware of the depth of the problem, and are just going to class that day."

Added Eban Goodstein, the Lewis & Clark economics professor who was the mastermind of the initiative: “The function of a teach-in is that it’s a statement by educators about what should be important to young people. By building it into the regular class day, we’re sending a strong signal that, hey, you should be paying attention to this."

On most campuses, events start the night before the teach-in, when professors and students watch a live Web cast addressing climate change issues and presented by Focus the Nation.

Organizers are providing faculty members with model lesson plans and panel topics that can be used in their presentations. Among the topics professors have chosen: a seminar on green investing and lectures on limits on power plant carbon dioxide pollution. The panels are designed so that professors talk for about 10 minutes on a topic in or close to their field.

Colleges are planning other events, including sustainability fairs and alternative-energy demonstrations that involve wind turbines and flex-fuel vehicles. Almost all the events are taking place toward the end of this month.

On some campuses, faculty involvement amounts to as little as passing along event information to students. At Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, however, roughly 150 professors have promised to either take part in the teach-in or dismiss class so that students can participate, according to Steven Marx, a professor of English who is helping to organize campus events -- among them a poetry slam and an art show.

Teach-in panels feature physics, architecture and engineering professors, and carry such titles as "The Science of Global Warming" and "Climate Change and the Individual."

“The event is a rallying point for a large number of faculty and students," Marx said.

John Calderazzo, a professor of English at Colorado State University who is helping to organizing the initiative on his campus, said the event gives professors who already work climate change topics into their classes the chance to help their colleagues think of ways to do the same.

"We had the feeling that there are an awful lot of people out there who are worried about climate change but don't know how to approach the subject," Calderazzo said.

The recent graduates who helped plan Focus the Nation spent much of last fall identifying professors across the country who would help them spread the word. Tinker said some faculty members were hesitant to get involved, particularly those that didn't see themselves as activists. His pitch: "We're not asking you to take a political position. We're asking you to share knowledge about global warming in a way that affects your discipline."

The two-day event at Colorado State is taking place in two large rooms in the student center. Roughly 50 professors are taking part in panel sessions that run throughout the days. Calderazzo said he is canceling both of his classes that are scheduled on Jan. 30 (the first day of the CSU event) and asking his nonfiction writing students to go to any part of the Focus days that they wish and write a report about the event.

Focus the Nation is part of a broader effort in which Calderazzo and others are building a network of faculty and researchers whose interests and research coalesce around climate change. The ultimate goal is a full-blown academic program for students.

Following the teach-in at Colorado State and on other campuses, students and faculty are being asked to attend roundtable discussions with politicians and eventually vote on a number of actions to take. Part of the idea behind the initiative is to motivate students to lobby their representatives about environmental issues.

Goodstein said he hopes faculty members will use a forum section on the initiative's Web site to discuss what types of panel topics worked and what didn't, and to plan future events.

Of course, some will argue that using the phrase "teach-in" to describe the climate change events doesn't do justice to the anti-war events of the 1960s.

“It’s such an evocative word – "teach-in" for me rings a lot of bells," Marx said. "That was the best part of the student movement in the 60s -- a movement I was a part of. I say 'teach-in," and probably one percent of students know what that references. But there's enough information [provided by Focus the Nation organizers] that I think they get the point."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Global Warming 'Teach-In'

  • This is education?
  • Posted by Amy De Rosa on January 17, 2008 at 9:05am EST
  • Well, at least it's only about a thousand colleges that are participating. Maybe the other 2,000 or so American institutions of higher learning will continue to teach chemistry, physics, biology, ethics, philosophy, political science. . . . . . . .

  • They will!
  • Posted by Anne Marie , Reference & Instruction Librarian at University of Dubuque on January 17, 2008 at 9:30am EST
  • Faculty participating WILL continue to teach in their disciplines according to this article. Global warming is the perfect example on an interdisciplinary topic worthy of research & study in chemistry, physics, biology, ethics, philosophy, political science...What a great way to engage students in discussing issues that matter to ALL disciplines.

  • Posted by Jim Shields on January 17, 2008 at 9:40am EST
  • This event is little more than indoctrination, unworthy of institutions of higher learning.

  • Beg to differ
  • Posted by Amy De Rosa on January 17, 2008 at 9:45am EST
  • Of course global warming can and should be discussed in classes on physics, chemistry,philosophy, etc. and of course students should be engaged on topics that relate to various disciplines. That's not the issue. When professors agree to shorten lectures and sign on to a campaign by an outside interest group that advances a particular viewpoint, that begins to look and sound like political indoctrination rather than education for the purpose of learning the truth about a particular subject. That's the issue.

  • Teach-In Time and Location
  • Posted by Paul Roden , Training Manager at La Salle University on January 17, 2008 at 10:45am EST
  • What if the teach-in are just advertised with a flyer, poster, announcement at the end or beginnig of the class and it is conducted during what we call the "Universal Free-Periods", usually 1:00 to 2:00 pm or 12:30 to 2:00 pm? We have had visiting lecturers and speakers during those times talking about a wide range of issues, not just political or controversial ones. Professors from a wide range of disciplines encourage students to attend by offering extra credit if they attend, write a reaction paper or essay. Is academia so threatened by the topic of global warming that they can't even have a forum on it or discuss it in the classroom? Aren't we supposed to be teaching critical thinking skills and inviting all sides to debate issues? Isn't part of the academic experience to engage students into world affairs?

  • Global Warming
  • Posted by Dr Coles on January 17, 2008 at 10:45am EST
  • U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007. http://tinyurl.com/2dv6nz

  • Indoctrination?
  • Posted by LM on January 17, 2008 at 11:00am EST
  • Amy De Rosa:
    Funny, I thought climate change was an issue for all people and disciplines - not a topic of special interest groups to be regarded as indoctrination when openly discussed.

  • Posted by RK on January 17, 2008 at 11:05am EST
  • Global warming is an NWO fraud, free energy/over unity systems exist and have existed since Tesla.

  • Indoctrination, pure and simple
  • Posted by Phil on January 17, 2008 at 11:05am EST
  • I received a flyer about this event, and here is the first topic:

    "Summary of recent climate science: answering the deniers."

    I defy anyone to tell me that this is not about indoctrination. Even if I 100% agreed with a topic, I do NOT think higher education should be about stifling debate as controlled by outside parties.

  • Amy De Rosa's Skepticism Justified
  • Posted by J A DeLater on January 17, 2008 at 12:15pm EST
  • Though I'll suspend final judgment until after my own on-campus observations and after I've read reports from other campuses on the activities of the scheduled global warming "teach-ins", I'm not optimistic that they'll be more than thinly-disguised political indoctrination and advocacy sessions, as they nearly all were in the supposed halcyon days of campus anti-war "teach-ins" of the sixties and seventies alluded to in Professor Marx's fatuous remarks. For example, will the views of specialists skeptical of the anthropogenic theory of global warming be fairly presented? And will the views of the 400 doubters linked above by Dr Coles be analyzed fairly?

    In any case, I agree with Ms De Rosa's view that such "teach-ins" are best scheduled as extracurricular activities.

  • Posted by Lulu on January 17, 2008 at 12:25pm EST
  • I am always troubled when controversial issues' perspectives are not equally debated on college campuses without the presumption of single answers. This sort of effete,insular activity is just the kind that feeds into the public perception of academia as a haven for folk who believe they are superior to the masses.

  • Debate without the sledgehammer
  • Posted by Bill on January 17, 2008 at 12:25pm EST
  • Climate change hasn’t just happened in the last 200 hundred years, it has been going on since the beginnings of this planet and it is still occurring. Climatic change is as complex of a model as nature itself. The idea that we can see one cause and effect indicator and determine that climatic change is being forced by such, needs a lot more study. We tend to look at the climatic model like it is should remain static.

    Before we cry “The sky is falling,” let us look at this occurrence with open eyes. Debate about climatic change is healthy, right up to the point where it becomes a big stick to indoctrinate the people who believe the jury is still out. Man and CO² emissions may not be or may not be the only, players in this drama. From a different angle, man certainly has an effect, but to what extent? That is the real $64,000 question.

    Either way, healthy debate, learning to and/or becoming more conservative with energy and resources will be beneficial if done wisely, without the sledgehammer approach.

  • Koom by yaa
  • Posted by Fairbanks on January 17, 2008 at 1:00pm EST
  • Organizers would be more effective keeping students awake for long hours singing global warming hymns. Isn't this text book indoctrination?

    The forum described is run by an authority, a person with control of the grade book.
    Alternative conclusions are not presented.

    What is truly criminal is the debt some of these students are accumulating while being denied an education. ~$30k a year so that somebody with a PhD on "Chaucers use of the second person stem" can lecture you on the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Arrogance.

  • Disheartening
  • Posted by Amy , student at Fort Lewis College on January 17, 2008 at 1:30pm EST
  • Wow. It is incredibly disheartening to me to hear such an inane debate such as the above even within the context of "higher learning." As educators and the educated, it seems important that we promote discussion of these issues that rarely receive regular media (and GOVERNMENTAL) coverage. The fact of global warming is a universal non-issue: we know it's happening. As one of the most powerful nations in the world, it is our job and duty to do something about it. Higher education has long been the nurturing environment for social change, and now again it must serve the same purpose.

  • Earth Day Brainwashing Festival
  • Posted by Faculty Member at Private University on January 17, 2008 at 2:05pm EST
  • The first thing that came to mind when this was plugged was that we were dealing with life imitating art a la the 'Earth Day Brainwashing Festival' in the South Park episode 'Terrance and Philip: Behind the Blow'. Perhaps I should celebrate academic freedom by showing that episode to all of my classes as counter-propaganda?

  • Pathetic
  • Posted by Emmy Bee on January 17, 2008 at 2:30pm EST
  • It is a great disappointment to me that students who are paying for an education are beaten and made to attend classes like these where professors decide that it contributes more to the edification of their pupils to teach pop-science instead of Shakespeare, French, Chemistry, etc. In other words, teaching outside their fields in order to advance what amounts to a political cause (I am certain that some will approach the problem in the spirit of genuine scientific inquiry, but certainly a professor of "Leisure Studies", or "What is literature?" cannot be expected to have the expertise necessary to do so).

    In many cases, I am sure that attending said eco-talk classes will not be voluntary, and that absence will count against the student's grade.

    At any rate, most people are not ignorant of the "problem" of global warming. Certainly not people who spent their college years inundated with films such as "The Day after Tomorrow" and "An Inconvenient Truth." Ignorance is not the issue, indoctrination is.

    To force pupils (by holding their grades over their heads) to attend special global warming classes and seminars is not only wrong, it is irresponsible. A responsible professor wants his or her students to get as much as possible from his or her course and the material to be studied within the (usually) short time allotted for the purpose. Anything more than a momentary deviation from that goal or an amusing anecdote to illustrate a concept or a point is a betrayal of their role as educators.

  • Already doing it!
  • Posted by Eric Crampton at University of Canterbury on January 17, 2008 at 3:10pm EST
  • I've already dedicated a week in my economics of current policy issues class to the economics of sustainability. The economic critiques of the Stern report, how choice of discount rate affects whether doing anything about global warming passes cost benefit analysis, how the cost of losing a percent of growth likely dominates the cost of dealing with the consequences of warming a century hence, and so on. Great fun!

  • It isn't a fact that . . . . . . .
  • Posted by Amy De Rosa on January 17, 2008 at 3:10pm EST
  • It is not a fact that citizens in developed countries are responsible for global warming and there are many of us who don't accept that global warming is the major challenge to our civilization as Focus the Nation puts it.

    Global warming is happening, apparently to a less-than alarming degree. And, as other readers here have commented, there is plenty of evidence to show that the planet does go through warming and cooling periods. Implicit in the Focus the Nation approach is the supposed 'fact' that developed countries like the U.S. have caused global warming and that we need to 'elevate global warming solutions to the top of the U.S. political agenda'--in the words of Focus the Nation.
    Debating whether or not developed countries are the cause of global warming is one thing. Being told in a 'teach-in' that developing countries are the cause of global warming is another thing. The former is the stuff of learning and is appropriate in the halls of academe. The latter is the stuff of political indoctrination and sophistry. Are there so many out there who can no longer tell the difference?

  • The Agenda
  • Posted by Jack Olson on January 17, 2008 at 3:25pm EST
  • The term "agenda" has become pejorative since people use it most often to refer to political causes they oppose. But, the Focus the Nation organization literally have a suggested agenda for the so-called teach-ins they are promoting although they suggest that you "taylor it" (would that be Frederick or Elizabeth?) to your campus.

    As they see it, global warming is an indisputable fact related to every academic field ever devised except phrenology and comparative folk dancing. This is why their proposed agenda suggests that at the teach-in a professor of film should talk about "the End of Suburbia", a professor of psychology should discuss denial, a professor of English should speak on science fiction, a professor of sociology should speak on "Corporate Culture", a professor of art should speak on "Iconic Images", and a professor of geology should conduct a presentation jointly with a professor of art on how to represent the paleo-record.

    Focus the Nation recommends that each campus have a professor of history speak on "Mobilizing for WWII", that a professor of African studies speak on Darfur, a professor of political science speak on the Apollo space program, and that a professor of sociology speak on the topic of New Orleans.

    In session 4C, scheduled for 11:30 a.m., they would have a professor of political science address the question of whether changing light bulbs leads to voting. I am not making this up. That is the question Focus the Nation wants him to answer although it should be obvious how hard it would be to cast a ballot in the dark.

    If you're pushing a political cause like global warming you naturally try to attract as many adherents as you can. That is why the Focus the Nation proposed agenda is ironically so unfocused. That's why they present global warming as a feminist issue to the Women's Studies Department (Session 5A, Gender Impacts), an American Indian issue to the Native American Studies Department (Session 4I, Native Americans on the Front Lines), and a public health issue to the Public Health Department (Session 4C, Lessons from Cigarettes). Unfortunately, few colleges have professors of plumbing so the authors of the proposed agenda had to limit themselves to everything but the kitchen sink.

  • Global Warming
  • Posted by Laurence Williams , Chief Scientist (Retired) on January 17, 2008 at 4:45pm EST
  • In the book “The World is Flat” Tom Friedman asks for a vigorous plan to counter global warming. He suggests the Apollo moon landing program as the model for an energy development program.

    This note is to alert you to the publication of my book “Global Warming Can Be Conquered” (ISBN 07 414 426 8 X). This book answers Mr. Friedman’s request.

    In the book I justify the need for, and outline an ambitious plan for a new energy infrastructure called the Renewable- Fusion-Hydrogen (RFH) Energy System. This system offers TOTAL elimination of the emission of fossil carbon by 2050. It is NOT the 80% reduction by 2050, currently under discussion. The 80% reduction in carbon dioxide may slow warming but is inadequate to protect the biosphere for more than a few decades. RFH Energy System has the potential to push critical warming off for several centuries and in the interim provides all nations with energy independence.

    My goal is to develop world wide interest in implementing the RFH Energy System. If you think the RFH Energy System makes sense please help me promote it by encouraging everyone you know to support its implementation. You can help by simply forward this note to everyone on your contact list, or if you buy the book lend it to others.

    We must commence dramatic reduction in the emission of carbon dioxide within the next few years. If you have an alternate plan, promote it and if it is better than RFH energy I will help promote your system. We need to act!

    You can review a brief outline of the system on my web site at:

    www.endtoglobalwarming.com

    You can send me a note at my e-mail address lowilliams@msn.com

    or place one on my blog at:

    http://energyindependence.home.services.spaces.live.com/default.aspx

    You can buy the book “Global Warming Can Be Conquered” (ISBN 07 414 426 8 X) from the publisher for $19.95 at: www.bbotw.com

  • Even True Believers Can Teach w/o indoctrinating!
  • Posted by Dr. James Snyder , Associate Professor of Philosophy at Mercyhurst College on January 17, 2008 at 4:45pm EST
  • I am a campus organizer and a participant in the teach-in. Although the national organizers are true believers (I am too, by the way) in what is emerging as a dominant scientifically based interpretation, there is total academic freedom for how one participates. There is no litmus test and there is no indoctrination. I have provided fellow faculty and students with a massive amount of information on the debates and asked that faculty/students treat them as they see fit but to become aware of the debates and the percieved solutions. Regarding the 400 Leading Scientists-Skeptics, there is now emerging significant criticism of the Senate testimony and the LIST.

  • Global Warming Solely a Political Issue?
  • Posted by Jason P. on January 17, 2008 at 5:05pm EST
  • I can't help but be concerned that everything these days has become so politicized that we Americans can't even agree to talk about the most serious of subjects without looking at each other through overly suspicious eyes.

    Question: Is it that so many people think that the issue of global warming is primarily a made-up ruse brought on by fanatic Democrats in an effort to take back the White House? Or is it mainly the organization that is running this Teach-In to which most people are objecting?

  • Globally warming feelings from the Philosophy Dept.?
  • Posted by Amy De Rosa on January 17, 2008 at 5:05pm EST
  • What is 'a dominant scientifically based interpretation. . .' Is that kind of like a feeling? And, to quote from the same reader regarding the teach-in. ..'there is total academic freedom for how one participates. . .' Academic freedom is the freedom not to participate.

  • A suggestion to the whiners
  • Posted by Dr. James Snyder , Associate Professor of Philosophy at Mercyhurst College on January 17, 2008 at 5:40pm EST
  • Instead of whining, perhaps the die-hard skeptics should get equally political and put on their own national teach-in, although that might be difficult given the liberal bias of higher ed. In that case, perhaps they should organize protests of the sessions--that certainly would stir up some interest!!! Personally, I would love to see such things happen because it just might stir our students out of their apathy. And, as more and more people get interested and informed and decide for themselves, I am confident that we will all be better off.

  • More Liberal Indoctrination by the Unqualified and Uninformed
  • Posted by Stubbornly Rational on January 17, 2008 at 5:40pm EST
  • Amy certainly has it right. If this information is so compelling and so valuable, why do the Goreans have to jam it down the throats of the students?

    Pay for an auditorium, advertise the event, and try to sell it. Freedom of choice, in a nutshell. But we all know what happened to Air America, don't we!

  • Flatulence
  • Posted by James Snyder on January 17, 2008 at 5:55pm EST
  • De Reso rails: "a dominant scientifically based interpretation. . .’ Is that kind of like a feeling?" Answer: No. Its a sociological statistical description. If you've got facts to prove the claim wrong, then by all means relieve me of my ignorance. Additionally, De Rosa claims: "Academic freedom is the freedom not to participate". Its more than that, of course, but that's part of it. At our institution, participation (both faculty and students) is voluntary. No problem. Moreover, I haven't heard of any institution mandating participation. If one did, then I think you should out them. Otherwise, your claims are flatuous

  • Short answer to Ms De Rosa's Answerer
  • Posted by J A DeLater on January 17, 2008 at 8:00pm EST
  • Professor Snyder suggests a national counter-"teach-in" (I prefer to keep this dubious term securely manacled in "scare-quotes") to the scheduled global warming "teach-ins" and/or "protests" against the "teach-ins." Perhaps even then followed by counter-counter-"teach-ins," more "protests," student trips to lobby state legislatures, demonstrations, debates, petitions to help defeat the environment and the like. These indeed might stir up "interest" and cause students to vault out of their study armchairs and sweep away the cobwebs of "apathy" now obscuring a single current and controversial issue, but wasn't one of Ms De Rosa's original points that replacing classes with competing "teach-ins" or "preach-ins" (as some would have it) was a distraction from students' regular courses of study?

    Though extracurricular activities can help enrich students' curricula, there are many professors I've observed in my years of teaching who can't seem to resist the itches to advocate and propagandize for current social and political causes.

  • wake up!
  • Posted by Todd , assistant professor on January 18, 2008 at 2:30pm EST
  • It's very simple, folks. Global warming is real. The job of education is to lead people out of ignorance. (Note that the Latin root educare means "to rear, bring up" and is related to the word for "lead forth .")

    We educators have a responsibility to help students grasp the truth. Remember that word? It hasn't quite been killed off by the post-structuralists.

  • Posted by Clark on January 19, 2008 at 12:30pm EST
  • The head of NASA said he was not sure global warming was a problem and added that it would be "arrogant" to assume the world's climate should not change in the future.

    http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2007/jun/02/nasa-chiefs-comments-global-warming-rise-scientist/

  • Posted by paul portuges , professor at ucsb on January 20, 2008 at 4:35pm EST
  • I encourage my students to write screenplays, documentaries, and essays on issues that are important to them now and in the future. What better and more relevant topic than global warming--pro or con?

  • Focus the Nation:: Let the Solutions Debate Begin!
  • Posted by Eban Goodstein , Director, Focus the Nation at Lewis & Clark College on January 21, 2008 at 3:10pm EST
  • Focus the Nation takes as a starting point the international scientific consensus as reflected in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and supported by the US National Academy of Sciences: that global warming will be a very serious challenge that today's young people will have to face. Clearly, many educators agree. Faculty, staff and student teams at over 1500 campuses and other institutions are holding events focused on discussion of global warming solutions.

    Focus the Nation events are all organized locally-- there is no prescribed national agenda or curriculum. And because global warming is inherently interdisciplinary, Focus the Nation should deliver intellectually exciting content across the country, as philosophers and geologists, engineers and artists, business professors and communication teachers all engage in thinking through this 21st century challenge.

    We are looking forward to a day of engaging national debate and discussion.

  • The facts don't support a climate crisis conclusion
  • Posted by M on January 22, 2008 at 11:35am EST
  • Many people do not realize that man made (anthropogenic) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions account for less than one half of one percent of all global GHG emissions. In other words, across the globe, the vast majority of GHG emissions are from sources man does not control. About 95% of those emissions are from water vapor. This means that human contributions to any observed greenhouse effect, are miniscule at best. It also means that proposed actions that could require huge changes in Americans' lives, and have a costly impact on our economy, would not have any real effect on global greenhouse emissions. So yes, I am one of those who believes the whole focus on man-driven climate crisis is not supported by the facts. I have cautioned my college stdent, however, not to argue with the professors with the gradebook, if on Jan. 31, he finds his professors have a clear bias toward the "crisis" view.