The National
Association of Scholars (NAS) is an academic organization devoted to resisting
the politicization of higher education that has infected colleges and
universities throughout the Western world.
Recently, it
released an exhaustive report on but another ideological fetish to have taken
academia by storm: the “sustainability” movement.
In “Sustainability:
Higher Education’s New Fundamentalism,” authors Peter Wood and Rachelle
Peterson caution readers against being misled by the innocuous euphemism of the
movement’s moniker. It is by design that the language of “sustainability”
invokes in the average person’s mind pleasant associations with responsible
stewardship of the “environment.”
But the
“sustainability” movement is much more—and much more ominous—than this.
In essence, it
“marks out a new and larger ideological territory in which curtailing economic,
political, and intellectual liberty is the price that must be paid now to
ensure the welfare of future generations.”
The NAS report
elaborates:
“As an ideology, sustainability takes aim at economic and political
liberty. Sustainability pictures economic liberty as a combination of strip
mining, industrial waste, and rampant pollution. It pictures political liberty
as people voting to enjoy the present, heedless of what it will cost future
generations.”
What this means is
that the proponents of “sustainability” envision as an “alternative to economic
liberty…a regime of far-reaching regulation that controls virtually every
aspect of energy, industry, personal consumption, waste, food, and
transportation.” And their “alternative to political liberty is control vested
in agencies and panels run by experts insulated from elections or other
expressions of popular will.”
The zealotry of the
“sustainability” ideologue, then, is not unlike that of any other inasmuch as
it is antithetical to liberty. However, the NAS report is painfully
clear that the “sustainability” ideologue has been remarkably successful in
making his utopian fantasy into a real world dystopia for most of the
Western world.
While the NAS
report focuses on “the new fundamentalism” of higher education, its
authors note from the outset that no one should be deluded into thinking that
this phenomenon is confined to the Ivory Tower. This, in fact, is far from the
case. “The movement, of course, extends well beyond the college campus. It
affects party politics, government bureaucracy, the energy industry, Hollywood,
schools, and consumers.”
Still, it is worth
turning to the relationship between “sustainability” and higher education, for
“the college campus is where the movement gets its voice of authority, and
where it molds the views and commands the attention of young people.”
Both intellectually
and financially, the harm that the ideology of sustainability has visited upon
academia can’t be overestimated.
Intellectually,
students have been deprived of the freedom to genuinely think through a
topic that, contrary to what “sustainability” zealots would have them believe,
deserves to be debated: whole curricula have been restructured to
immunize “sustainability” against criticism.
Hence,
“sustainability” ideologues have insured that education will give way to indoctrination.
Although its
advocates have tried convincing college and university administrators
otherwise, “sustainability” has been no less ruinous on the economic front:
American institutions of higher learning “spend more than $3.4 billion per year
pursuing their dreams of ‘sustainability’ [.]”
Clearly, this harms
no one as much as it harms students, for these billions of dollars of
expenditures come “at a time when college tuitions are soaring and 7.5 percent
of recent college graduates are unemployed and another 46 percent are
underemployed.”
At the same time,
“sustainability” ideologues in ever-growing numbers are demanding that
“colleges and universities divest their holdings in carbon-based energy
companies without regard to forgone income or growth in their endowments.”
The relentlessness
with which students are brainwashed into accepting the claims of the
sustainability movement is rivaled only by the extent to which they are
brainwashed.
Students “sign
sustainability pledges, learn about sustainability during orientation, absorb
sustainability in their courses, take mandatory sustainability training in
residence life programs,” and “are barraged by paid student peers (‘eco-reps’)
who ask them to alter their behavior [.]”
As a consequence,
students are taught to view “the norm for responsible, virtuous human life and
political citizenship” in terms of “strict environmentalism, social experimentation,
and a managed anti-free-market economic approach [.]”
So, in summary,
there are, then, five ways in which the “sustainability” movement is
undercutting liberal learning on college campuses.
First, ideologues
preempt debate by way of “blatant appeals to authority,” i.e. bogus claims that
there is a “consensus” among scientists that favors the position of the true
believers.
Second,
“sustainability” is now dogma. Hence, it essentially compels both
teaching and research to conform to its dictates. Education recedes before
indoctrination.
Third, the
orthodoxy of “sustainability” requires an aggressive psychological
“reprogramming” of students so that they will be always “attuned to the special
demands of the ideology.”
Fourth,
“sustainability” threatens the traditional ideals of a liberal arts education
insofar as it marginalizes, if it doesn’t altogether reject, these ideals. For
instance, “many colleges are embracing something called ‘the environmental
humanities,’ which pushes aside the traditional humanities curriculum.”
In other words,
nothing less than the intellectual and spiritual heritage of Western
civilization is threatened by “sustainability.”
Finally, the
ideology of “sustainability” encourages students to waste their resources in
time and energy engaged in “pointless battles” when they could have been
learning how to exercise responsible, meaningful citizenship.
The National
Association of Scholars deserves to be commended for their service. This fine
organization of academics has made it plain that neither higher learning nor
the rest of Western civilization can sustain the “sustainability” movement.
No comments:
Post a Comment