Life as Edward Jensen

In one of my classes today, a summary paper of David Orr’s book The Nature of Design was due.  Starting on Thursday (26 February), I start to get a barrage of emails sent from students in that class who have not yet started to read the 250-page book wanting to form reading groups.  A laudable idea, I think, but it is a clear sign of procrastination and justifying laziness.  (I digress.)

But today, about ninety minutes before the assignment is due, I get this email sent to the 400-person class from a student crying for help (copied directly from the email; punctuation, capitalization – or lack thereof – have been retained):

Hey guys but i am willing to give someone $20 if they are kind enough to email me a copy of their essay for assignment 2. I will change it around so that it will not be the same. I am asking of this because earlier today my backpack was stolen and my folder wit my paper was in it and also my flash drive and when i got home to check my laptop i didnt save it onto my laptop so if anyone can please help me i would be thankful. I will also pay you today after class by the vending machines that are outside on the west side of the building. My laptop has microsoft word 2003 so i cant open microsoft word 2007. First one to send me a copy i will pay.

What? Perhaps one should have pity on the student because of the circumstances surrounding what has happened.  But still, the student should have contacted the instructor or a teaching assistant to the course asking for an alternate course of action.  The student asks for someone else’s copy, which seems rather contrary to ASU’s established academic integrity policies.  From their website (excerpted):

Each student must act with honesty and integrity, and must respect the rights of others in carrying out all academic assignments. A student may be found to have engaged in academic dishonesty if, in connection with any Academic Evaluation or academic or research assignment (including a paid research position), he or she:

A. Engages in any form of academic deceit; …

C. Possesses, reviews, buys, sells, obtains, or uses, without appropriate authorization, any materials intended to be used for an Academic Evaluation or assignment in advance of its administration; …

E. Uses a substitute in any Academic Evaluation or assignment;

F. Depends on the aid of others, including other students or tutors, in connection with any Academic Evaluation or assignment to the extent that the work is not representative of the student’s abilities;

G. Provides inappropriate aid to another person in connection with any Academic Evaluation or assignment, including the unauthorized use of camera phones, text messages, photocopies, notes or other means to copy or photograph materials used or intended for Academic Evaluation;

H. Engages in Plagiarism; …

J. Permits his or her work to be submitted by another person in connection with any Academic Evaluation or assignment, without authorization;

K. Claims credit for or submits work done by another. …

So not only was this student engaging in academic dishonesty, but was going to have another student engage in academic dishonesty.  Both the copier and the copied would be equally guilty.  It is things like this that make me mad.  On that assignment, not only did I read the book and synthesize Mr. Orr’s content into one single-sided page, but I did it without outside aid.  I bring this up because this works to degrade the quality of the original work I did.

In short, if one were to come across a situation like this, one could either ignore the email or forward it to the instructor/TA.  (I am not sure if the instructor received this email when it was originally sent through Blackboard.)  If one were to aid a student in academic dishonesty, then both parties would be equally guilty and the merit of the assignment for those who worked on it would not be the same.

Academic dishonesty.  Just don’t do it.

-Edward Jensen

As preface/context, I am pursuing dual undergraduate degrees at Arizona State University: Urban & Metropolitan Studies (UMS) through the School of Public Affairs and Sustainability through the School of Sustainability.  Being in the fourth semester of my UMS studies and only in my first for Sustainability studies, I am taking the introductory classes to the latter.  And while the curriculum for Sustainability is what I thought it would be and that I understand the importance of such a program, there are just a couple of concerns I have.

Something that we are taught in these introductory classes on sustainability is that true sustainability is the intersection of environmental protection, social equity, and economic justice.  If I may borrow from ASU’s Global Institute of Sustainability (GIOS, the parent organization of the School of Sustainability), a sustainable society

considers the interconnectedness of environmental, economic, and social systems; reconciles the planet’s environmental needs with development needs over the long term; and avoids irreversible commitments that constrain future generations. (from here)

Being a UMS major, I have taken a lot of classes rooted in policy analysis.  From those classes (and also from being a student of history), long-term policy changes are best achieved through incremental policy shifts.  In other words, it is not wise to disregard previous policy and enact a new set of policies.  This sets any institution up for serious failure.  While troubling times do call for widespread measures, the rule of thumb is to change present policy in an incremental fashion.  This might be the result of society’s teaching that we should look upon extreme movements with a cautious eye and critical analysis.  The simple cultural clues that we get in our early years – don’t go too far from mommy and daddy, ignore the person on the street yelling that “the end is near”, and so on – teach us to ignore (and quite possibly tune out) extreme points of view.

I am prepared to argue that this is why programs such as Greenpeace and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) might be looked upon with widespread cultural disdain.  These programs have adopted a wildly different policy agenda for (in their words) saving the planet.  For instance, PETA advocates for everyone to go vegan: one step above and beyond simple vegetarianism.  To live a vegan lifestyle means to eliminate everything produced by animals.  Generally, these products are more expensive than their non-vegan counterparts, and so those who find that basic food for survival is too expensive could not adopt this lifestyle.  While it might protect the environment, it is not economically just.

It seems like sustainability is the current buzz word.  But I fear that people automatically associate sustainability with liberal tree-hugging hippies.  I believe that the reality of sustainability and the genuine need for sustainability education is far from this perception.  As a disclaimer to both my introductory courses in Sustainability this semester, the instructors conceded that there is not a wide literature on the field.  With that justification, I fear that I am getting a perception that my instructors teaching this curriculum are adopting that mantra (sustainability=save solely the environment).  Using their School’s (GIOS’s) definition of sustainability (see above), there is a definite disconnect.

The first real acceptance of the importance of sustainability was back in 1987 when the Brundtland Commission (formally World Commission on Environment and Development) of the United Nations released their report, Our Common Future, and said (about sustainable development):

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts: the concept of ‘needs’, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs.

I bring this up to show that the idea of sustainability is relatively new.  The textbooks for both my introductory classes to the concept are from the disparate areas of sustainability: environment, economy, and society.  But the emphasis seems to be on the first of those areas.  The PETA agenda example I listed above just targets one of those disparate areas (environment).

Let me be clear that I am not dismissing that we need to change our current habits of consumption.  I am arguing that the best way to do this is in an incremental manner.  Take the customary New Year’s Resolutions that people make.  Most resolutions proposed are on a large scale: stop smoking, lose 30 pounds, or do some other behavioral change.  Most of those resolutions do not make it through the end of January.  I bring this up because this is an argument that we are creatures of habit.  We do things with the best of intentions but we fade back into our prior habits.  I fear that true sustainability, if its associated polices are not adopted in an incremental fashion, will be looked upon as a fleeting fancy and nothing will happen.

As I was discussing with one of my colleagues, there are a lot of incremental changes that individuals can make to affect the course of this planet and adopt sustainable living.  If everyone switched out one incandescent light bulb and replaced it with one compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL).  The micro change that this would bring would be massive on the macro scale.  All being equal, however, it is still an incremental change.

I hope I have shed some light on this.  I was working on a book review assignment and I thought of  this issue.

-Edward Jensen

“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. -the United Nations, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future

Another popular definition further breaks down sustainability into three different components: environmentally, economically, and socially. It is more than the latest buzz word

Something that irritates me are some of the ’sustainable design’ elements of the new Taylor Place residence halls at the ASU Downtown Phoenix campus. The complex is proud of the fact that they’re using television monitors as video message boards instead of paper. First, is using a television, using the definitions above, sustainable? I think that it would fall more under the phrase, ‘environmentally friendly’. In the long run, however, which truly is more environmentally friendly? Is a piece of paper – or a ream of paper, for that matter – more environmentally friendly than a television? Which creates more greenhouse gases in its production and use: paper or a television?

Paper requires minimal greenhouse gases to produce when from recycled sources, and a television requires a lot in manufacturing, use, and even disposal. Little of a television can be recycled. The entire piece of paper can be recycled and reused.

Is this truly environmentally friendly? Or, in the words of ASU, sustainable?

If an institution is going to be sustainable in all three uses of the definition, then it should just be sustainable and not talk about it. It should not talk up how ‘environmentally friendly’ it is but use the term ’sustainable’ to talk about it. If we were going to promote environmentally friendly practices, sometimes the way it’s been done is the best way to do it.

Cheers-
Edward Jensen