LAST WEEK, President Casteen issued a statement saying that he did not intend to sign the American College and University Presidents' Climate Commitment on behalf of the University. For this action he should be commended. Though sustainability is and should be an issue for the University, blindly adhering to the whims of environmental activists is contrary to the University's mission and can only bring negative consequences. Hopefully this precedent will serve as a lesson and a reminder should similar proposals come up in the future.
Though the aforementioned environmental activists have no doubt stopped reading at this point, there are reasons why this commitment or anything like it would be damaging to the University. To begin, section one requires signatories to "develop an institutional action plan for becoming climate neutral," to set goals, etc. Indeed, it even asks universities to develop their own methods for rating their progress. Though this wording allows maximum flexibility, it also means maximum inefficiency and illustrates a lack of organizational competence.
To be fair, elsewhere on the group's Web site they provide some examples of what other universities have done, but these are minimally helpful as they apply to specific, individual cases. The group has no standard by which to gauge the status of its signatories, it offers no useful assistance towards achieving its goals, nor does it define what its goals are. As the University's March 21 response notes, there is not even "a clear definition of the meaning of the commitment's benchmark term, 'climate neutrality.'" Any proposal, in order to have merit, should come with a rational and practical plan of action rather than just a vague and distant goal. This would be true if the document was in favor of global warming as much as in its current version.
In addition to the commitment's weaknesses on the most basic level, the message portrayed is clearly not as altruistic as it may seem. Section two, part (a) mandates that "all new campus construction will be built to at least the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED Silver standard or equivalent." The USGBC and its LEED program, however, are in no way connected to the government or any other credible third-party group. Instead, it is an organization offering its services and membership for a price. Moreover, as the University's response points out, adhering to the LEED guidelines would commit the University to "technologies that do not now exist" and to standards determined by an outside for-profit group, the costs and benefits of which are unknown.
The rest of section two requires similarly dangerous commitments on the part of its signatories. Part (b) would force the University to "adopt an energy-efficient appliance purchasing policy requiring purchase of ENERGY STAR certified products." This may sound nice, but again it is anti-competitive and places the University's purchasing power under the control of a third-party. Likewise, part (e) requires the purchase of electricity from renewable energy sources and part (f) that the University support "climate and sustainability shareholder proposals at companies where our institution's endowment is invested." All of this has the same purpose: It would force the University to act according to the whims of environmental companies that are acting in their own self-interest rather than the University's. Committing such control to an outside group is unquestionably dangerous and wrong-headed, especially given that the University receives funds from state taxpayers.
Finally, there is one part of this commitment so contrary to the University's mission that it alone makes the proposal a travesty. The commitment demands that the University "make climate neutrality and sustainability a part of the curriculum and other educational experience for all students." In other words, it wants the University to brainwash its students and faculty into believing the scare tactics about global warming and doing whatever the Commitment's creators say will fix it -- such as perhaps buying Energy Star-approved products. That any University student would consider supporting this proposal and that the University administration took so long to reject it is sad.
Fortunately Casteen declined to sign the American College & University President Climate Commitment, though this proposal and others like it will no doubt continue to pop up again and again. At no time should the University turn any control over its resources, even indirectly, to an outside group, even if unlike the commitment's creators it has the clearest and most benign motives. More importantly, the University should never hesitate to reject a proposal that even hints at degrading its academic integrity.
Allan Cruickshanks' column appears on Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at acruickshanks@cavalierdaily.com
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 4 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
