Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
Re-Post from February 13, 2009 - My Open Letter to UA President Hamilton
[In the interest of providing additional information about the Prof. Rick Steiner case, while so many are paying attention to it, this might be a good time to re-post the first part of my open letter to General Hamilton, originally from February 13, 2009. Part of the reason it is germane is that the contention of NOAA and UA throughout has been that Steiner, through advocating ANY point of view, became an ADVOCATE. I walk Gen. Hamilton through the speciousness of that argument.]Dear President Hamilton,
I'm writing an open letter to you based upon recent disturbing developments directly related to the public responsibilities of your office.
The Attempted Gagging of Prof. Rick Steiner
Regard[ing] actions taken against Professor Rick Steiner, another University of Alaska educator, resulting from his participation in an open letter to you.
On March 18, 2008, several parties, interested in the long-term viability of Bristol Bay area ecosystems noted serious conceptual flaws in the North Aleutian Basin Energy-Fisheries Initiative, being implemented by the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) and Alaska Sea Grant. These concerned citizens, administrators, educators and science professionals noted that the Initiative's premise was flawed by its open advocacy of offshore oil development in Bristol Bay, and by accepting a partnership in the Initiative from Shell Oil.
One of the signers of the open letter, University of Alaska Prof. Rick Steiner, was bound by the standards of Sea Grant Program Neutrality Guidance procedure to criticize the fault. It was within his rights to write the open letter. Those procedures state, in part:
Advocacy of one position alienates those on the other side[s].
The Initiative, by advocating the position of Shell Oil, obligated Prof. Steiner to seek a remedy.
University of Alaska Dean of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, Denis A. Wiesenburg, completely misread Steiner's obligations. Instead of lauding Steiner for his concern about Sea Grant neutrality credibility, Dean Wiesenburg began attacking Prof. Steiner.
On May 8, 2008, in an e-mail to Sea Grant administrator Paula Cullenberg, Wiesenburg appears to have appended the agent manual I have cited from above, taking an opposite view of Steiner's obligation on March 18, 2008. He was beginning to build a case against Prof. Steiner.
On May 7, in Silver Springs, Maryland, at a National Sea Grant meeting, Wiesenburg had been approached by National Sea Grant College Program Deputy Director Jim Murray. Murray stated to Wiesenburg that, "they had an 'issue with Rick Steiner.'"
On July 9, 2008, Dean Wiesenburg related this "problem" to University of Alaska Labor Relations Director, Kris Racina, in an e-mail that clearly indicated Wiesenburg was preparing to cut the Sea Grant fund to Steiner in the future.
On December 2, 2008, in an astoundingly unprofessional move, Dean Wiesenburg took the opportunity of using a 3rd Year Dean's Review Post-Tenure Review to characterize Prof. Steiner's participation in what clearly was Steiner's obligation under Sea Grant guidelines, as an "attack."
Wiesenberg's review concludes with a quote from UNAC CBA provision, section 6.2, which states:
"Academic freedom is accompanied by the corresponding responsibility to provide objective and skillful exposition of one's subject, to at all times be accurate, to exercise appropriate restraint, to show respect for the opinions of others and to indicate when appropriate that one is an institutional representative."
A. Academic freedom is accompanied by the corresponding responsibility to provide objective and skillful exposition of one's subject - Dean Wiesenburg, by characterizing Prof. Steiner's concerns about the Bristol Bay Initiative's neutrality as an "attack," failed to be either skilled or objective in his review.
B. to at all times be accurate - in all the correspondence on this yet made public, Dean Weisenburg has yet to observe the objective nature of Prof. Steiner's initial stance in the March 18, 2008 Open Letter.
C. to exercise appropriate restraint - Dean Wiesenburg's characterization of Steiner, Kelly Harrell, Bob Shavelson, Whit Sheard, Terry Hoefferle, the Chief Executives of Bristol Bay Native Association (BBNA), Bristol Bay Economic Development Corporation (BBEDC), Bristol Bay Native Corporation (BBNC), Bristol Bay Housing Authority (BBHA), and Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation (BBAHC) as "publicly attacking Alaska Sea Grant program activities," is quite inflammatory. Statements such as this by the dean do nothing positive to help craft working relations between UAF and the Alaska Native community.
D. to show respect for the opinions of others - the open letter concluded with:
We write this letter in the spirit of cooperation and sincerely hope that we can work together to devise solutions to our very valid concerns with the initiative.
E. and to indicate when appropriate that one is an institutional representative - Prof. Steiner signs off thus:
Rick Steiner, Professor
University of Alaska
Dean Wiesenburg has behaved unprofessionally toward a person many regard as one of Alaska's most distinguished citizens. Not only has Dr. Wiesenburg maligned Prof. Steiner, his funding cut-off request, combined with the extremely prejudicial Post-Tenure Review is not in keeping with your public statements regarding freedom of expression on our campus.
Here is what Prof. Steiner wrote about this and other ecological issues, just this week:
“The present crisis in our nation’s marine and coastal ecosystems requires a clear and urgent national response. But instead of responding to the ocean crisis, this new de facto gag order from NOAA Sea Grant will have a chilling effect on scientists who want to advocate for greater ocean protection and restoration.”
APRN's Talk of Alaska Offers Statewide Opportunity for Hamilton-Steiner Debate
I. Alaska Public Radio's Steve Heimel, producer of the award-winning program Talk of Alaska, has informed me that he has opened up the November 3rd slot on TofA for any possibility of a debate or discussion that involves University of Alaska President Gen. Mark Hamilton and University of Alaska Fairbanks Associate Professor Rick Steiner. Steiner has invited Hamilton to "debate with me, openly and publicly, re: the issue of academic freedom, and the influence of corporate donations to the university."
Hamilton in an email to Steiner Sunday, wrote, in response to Steiner's debate invitation, "Dr Steiner, you have peaked my interest. Mark."
What Hamilton meant, until we know more, is debatable. But you can encourage him to accept APRN's generous offer, by calling his office at (907) 450-8000, or by emailing him at sypres@alaska.edu.
II. Should Gen. Hamilton refuse to debate Steiner on this, either at the APRN venue, or elsewhere, or should he simply refuse to acknowledge any of the interest in this issue, Progressive Alaska and others will probably try to organize a statewide and national effort to try to get the National Association of Scholars to rescind the 2002 award they bestowed upon Gen. Hamilton for promoting so-called "Academic Freedom."
Sunday, October 25, 2009
University of Alaska President Accepts Prof. Steiner's Challenge to Debate Freedom of Expression on Campus - Or Does He?
Sunday morning, University of Alaska Prof. Rick Steiner challenged his boss, U of A President, Gen. Mark Hamilton, to an open, public forum:"I would like to invite you to debate with me, openly and publicly, re: the issue of academic freedom, and the influence of corporate donations to the university."
Gen. Hamilton has replied - rather tersely, but positively:
"Dr Steiner, you have peaked my interest. Mark"
Gen. Hamilton might have picked a better choice of words, but I'm piqued by the possibility that these two distinguished Alaskans, both apparently about to leave our sometimes inadequate, sometimes dynamically impressive university system, might meet, debate and air not only the issues of Steiner's activism, but others as well.
Let's hope Mark and Rick can meet publicly, so we can all have a peek, and that the meeting becomes an opportunity to help Alaskans understand the complexity of accommodating a visionary such as Steiner in an academic environment as stifling as the one Hamilton has had to promote. That would certainly be a peak experience.
You can help Gen. Hamilton report for duty on this by calling or emailing him at his office in Fairbanks.
His office phone number is (907) 450-8000
His email is sypres@alaska.edu
Be polite.
Here is Rick Steiner's challenge to Gen. Hamilton:
President Hamilton –Given recent circumstances, I would like to invite you to debate with me, openly and publicly, re: the issue of academic freedom, and the influence of corporate donations to the university.You have said many things in support of academic freedom over the years, but when push came to shove in my case, you made a decision in opposition to free speech.In 2002, you received an award for your support of academic freedom from a group calling itself the “National Association of Scholars”, who it turns out, actually opposes sustainability movements on today’s college campuses. They say that sustainability is “deceptive, coercive, closed-minded, a pseudo-religion, distorts higher education, shrinks freedom, programs people, is anti-rational, by-passes faculty, and is wasteful.” This group apparently supports free speech only when they agree with what is spoken, and opposes it when they disagree with what is spoken. Apparently this is your position as well. That you chose to accept an award fro this group calls into serious question the progressive character of the University of Alaska.All of this is an extremely serious transgression of the very role a university is supposed to fulfill in civil society.
I look forward to your reply, and to debating this issue publicly and honestly.
Sincerely, Rick Steiner, Professor
KTUU Hiring Middle School Students to Interview our Legislators?
Otherwise, as others have observed, this was
Update - 8:00 p.m: Commenters are observing that the young reporter may have been doing a standard audio level check in the way she had either been trained to do one, or as she had learned some of her colleagues had done them.
Essentially, they contend the reporter was merely having Sen. Murkowski say words that would both identify the Senator for archive purposes and fulfill the audio check function. I had thought this practice had disappeared along with a lot of other pre-digital setup procedures. I may have been wrong.
Read through the comments to get some opinions on this.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Saturday Alaska Progressive Blog Roundup - More on University of Alaska Prof. Rick Steiner
I. The Shannyn Moore Show on KBYR-AM Radio will feature University of Alaska Prof. Rick Steiner today. The program airs between 5:00 and 7:00 p.m. You can listen to the simulcast HERE.The Alaska blogs The Immoral Minority and The Mudflats usually live blog Shannyn's show, so there may be some interesting new information emerging in blog comments on comparable cases elsewhere, or on Steiner's. The Mudflats has done some disambiguation on which Rick Steiner and which Shannon Moore will be on the air.
II. There are some other interesting articles on the Steiner case emerging:
• Alaska blogger Celia Harrison has compared Steiner's treatment to that of Louisiana State University Prof. Ivor Van Heerden. Van Heerden was punished for being absolutely right about the dangers development in the lower Mississippi Delta brought with them, and for accurately predicting the kinds of damage that occurred during and after Hurricane Katrina.
• The outside blog Planet Thoughts has posted the transcript of Steiner's interview last week on America's best video news program, Democracy Now.
• There is now a Rick Steiner is Right! facebook group.
• KTUU-TV covered Steiner's resignation announcement yesterday evening.
• Back in February, I wrote an open letter to University of Alaska President, Gen. Mark Hamilton. He never responded. Apparently, Moore has invited him onto today's show.
III. Here is a timeline of actions against Prof. Rick Steiner or incidents that should raise the interest of people who care about academic freedom:
1989 – As university marine advisor for Prince William Sound (based in Cordova, Alaska), Steiner assumes public profile during Exxon Valdez Oil Spill response and issues following.
1990 – 1991 Steiner proposes settlement in spill damage case between Exxon and governments, and advocates using much of the restoration funds for protection of coastal habitat and forests in oil spill region. Others in university research community advocate use of most spill restoration funds instead for research.
1991 – 1994 University administrators begin pressuring Steiner re: his public statements, objecting to his “advocacy” regarding oil spill prevention, restoration, response, and oil/environment issues in general. They deny his promotion due to such “advocacy.”
1994 – University Regent (owner of an Alaska timber company) asks on-the-record at Regents meeting that Steiner be terminated from university.
1994 – University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) Chancellor sends Steiner a letter criticizing him for inviting U.S. President Clinton to address the Exxon Valdez 5th anniversary conference in Anchorage, for which he was on the steering committee.
1994 – Regent sends the Chancellor’s (Steiner) reprimand letter to the Anchorage Times, who publish it in full in Alaska’s largest newspaper to publicly defame him.
2004 – Steiner proposes to university administrators that he be transferred into an environmental sustainability faculty position, to allow him to expand his environmental programming without continued pressures to constrain his academic freedom.
2004 – Selendang Ayu oil spill occurs in Aleutian Islands, a ship casualty Steiner had warned about and tried to prevent years before. Front-page story in main Alaska newspaper on this warning to government (“Disaster avoidable, professor says”).
2004 – In response to Steiner media comments, new dean of School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences (SFOS) sends all faculty members in the school an email requiring them to clear all press contact and inquiries through the PR staff of SFOS. The dean orders Steiner news coverage removed from SFOS website.
2005 – The SFOS dean calls Steiner and tells him “to not criticize state government as that is where we get our money;”…that Steiner “should not advocate”….and that Steiner should not be listed as an information resource on a NGO website – the Alaska Oceans Program.
2005 – Anchorage Daily News runs front-page story “Professor seeks transfer after spill remarks draw fire” that discusses the obvious infringement of academic freedom. SFOS dean sends Steiner a threatening letter, warning him not to criticize him or the university in public.
2005 – Email sent from and to National Sea Grant officials stating the following: “Steiner is one of a handful of agents who has a reputation for crossing the advocacy line to become an environmental advocate.”
2005 – SFOS dean secretly plans to terminate Steiner’s office lease. An email to Steiner from a colleague divulges that they had overheard the dean saying that he intended “to punish” Steiner by terminating his separate office space in retaliation for him speaking publicly about the academic freedom issue and for criticizing the university. Grievance filed by faculty union – United Academics (UNAC). UNAC grievance asserts that main Marine Advisory Program (MAP) office is hostile working environment for Steiner. Subsequent investigation by SFOS associate dean confirms that, while there is no clear discrimination due to race, gender, etc. in the main office, the report found extensive hostility and unhealthy work conditions, particularly for Steiner, at that office. As a result, Steiner is left in his separate office as UNAC grievance requests (temporarily).
2005 – SFOS dean prohibits Steiner (but apparently no others in the school) from conducting any international travel without having outside salary for such (although he had always secured outside travel support).
2006 – Steiner takes 2-month medical leave due to continued harassment from university administrators.
2005 – 2008 – Many internal emails sent among university administrators regarding their concerns and criticism for Steiner and his environmental perspectives and public profile.
1/07 – MAP director calls staff for the Alaska Climate Impact Assessment Commission (a commission Steiner first conceived and proposed to the Alaska Legislature in 2005, and received unanimous vote in 2006 legislative session), prior to Steiner’s invited keynote testimony, without notifying Steiner, registering concerns over Steiner’s upcoming testimony. His testimony time subsequently cut from 1 hour to 20 minutes by the commission, and unusual questions being asked of Steiner by the commission chair at beginning of his testimony, broadcast statewide on Alaska public television.
10/07 – MAP director meets with Steiner, sends follow up email agreeing to his request to continue to be located in an office separate from the main office.
12/07 – 6/08 Governor Palin publicly states that the State of Alaska (ADFG) marine mammal biologists did not agree with the federal proposed rule to list polar bears under the Endangered Species Act, and invokes this claim to back the state’s opposition to listing. Steiner tries for 6 months to obtain the written review by the state biologists, and after several rounds of denials by ADFG to the document request (including a claim that it would cost Steiner $468,784 to search for the documents), the state refuses to release the document, using an Attorney General’s decision that the document was “pre-decisional.” Steiner finally obtained the state review through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from the federal government. The state science review shows unequivocally that, contrary to the Governor’s public assertion, state marine mammal scientists actually did find that polar bears are at considerable risk due to climate change, and agreed with the federal findings behind the listing. Considerable media attention given to the lack of transparency and dishonesty of the Palin administration from this episode.
3/08 – Steiner joins colleagues in Alaska marine conservation NGO community to publicly raise concerns about a University of Alaska and Sea Grant conference on offshore oil development in Bristol Bay Alaska, whose main sponsor was Shell oil.
3/08 – Deputy Director of National Sea Grant Program sends email to Chair of Sea Grant Advisory Committee telling him: “I have strong feelings about extension agents getting into advocacy and I would be happy to take Steiner to task if warranted.”
3/08 – Steiner learns of proposed meeting between Shell oil and UA officials, and asks university officials to be able to participate. University officials deny Steiner’s request, and conceal time/date/location of the meeting from him.
3/08 – UNAC files grievance on behalf of Steiner, re: his exclusion from Shell/UA meeting as violation of his academic freedom, the state Open Meetings Act, and university policy on open meetings. During grievance process, administrators deny that Steiner was singled out for exclusion, and ultimately deny the grievance. Documents obtained later (through public records requests) prove that administrators indeed singled Steiner out for exclusion from the Shell meetings. Weeks before the meeting, the UAF Chancellor had sent an email to SFOS dean regarding Steiner’s request to join the meeting, saying: “Rick is not on a need to know basis with these discussions.” Other emails discovered later reveal that administrators had expected him to be “a spoiler.”
7/08 – SFOS dean sends email to another university administrator (yet does not disclose to Steiner) citing a meeting he held with National Sea Grant Office (NSGO) in Washington DC the preceding May, in which they discussed Steiner. Among other things, the email states the following:
“Jim Murray (the Deputy Director of the National Sea Grant Program) advised me that they have an ‘issue with Rick Steiner.’ They felt he was acting as an advocate and asked if he was being paid with Sea Grant funds. I told them that he received one month of salary from our Sea Grant grant. Jim expressed concern about this and stated that ‘one agent can cause problems nationally.’ The suggestion was made that he not be paid with Sea Grant funds…they worry that his actions in Alaska could have negative implications nationally...Professor Steiner is receiving one month salary from our Sea Grant grant. It will be my recommendation that Professor Steiner’s salary not be included in the grant, and that he continue to receive his nine month salary from our Fund 1 budget as required by the CBA.”
9/08 – Steiner publicly criticizes former Governor Palin’s environmental policy during VP campaign, in particular her position on polar bear listing and lack of transparency with science.
12/08 – SFOS dean reviews Steiner’s 3-year post-tenure file, criticizing Steiner that he has:
“chosen to be a maverick and to work independently,” and;
“Mr. Steiner regularly takes strong positions on matters of public debate. The NSGO (National Sea Grant Office) has asked that we not support such with federal dollars….”
12/08 – Steiner requests internal documents from the dean to elucidate background behind the dean’s adverse review, pursuant to Alaska Public Records Act. University withholds 13 documents, and provides others after assessing a fee (the first ever paid by Steiner in his decades of using public records acts).
2/09 – Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) – a national NGO - publicizes the Steiner case nationally, and considerable media attention follows in Alaska and elsewhere. After being approached by the Associated Press regarding the Steiner issue, university administrators decide to replace (for one year) the federal salary they planned to remove from Steiner, using state funds.
2/09 – MAP director and SFOS dean host teleconference with SFOS and MAP faculty and staff, as well as Alaska Sea Grant external advisory committee members (dignitaries outside the university) to discuss the media reports on the Steiner matter. MAP director uses the public teleconference to criticize Steiner’s activities and work performance, scientific credentials, and denies media reports that Steiner’s federal funding is in jeopardy. One Alaska dignitary on teleconference says that Steiner should be reprimanded and should consider finding work elsewhere.
3/09 – Anchorage Daily News runs story: “UA professor in danger of losing federal grant funding.” Many letters to editor and opinion pieces printed in news and on websites in support of Steiner.
3/09 – Steiner invited to give a public presentation on free speech and ocean conservation in Anchorage. In question and answer period at end, MAP director stands up and contends that Steiner’s federal funding is not at risk, and that the media had reported the issue incorrectly.
3/09 – UNAC files grievance for infringement of academic freedom due to threats that Steiner’s federal Sea Grant funding is to be terminated due to his public statements. Provost officially informs Steiner and UNAC that indeed Steiner’s federal (Sea Grant) funding is to be terminated, but denies the grievance. This is the first time in Alaska and, as far as can be determined, nationally, where federal grant funding for a university faculty member was terminated due to the faculty member’s public comments. As such, this is a nationally historic event.
4/09 – UNAC appeals grievance to Chancellor of UAF.
4/09 – After a letter from PEER to new NOAA administrator on Steiner issue, Deputy Director of National Sea Grant Program is reassigned, removing him from any oversight responsibility for Alaska program.
4/09 – MAP director asks to meet with Steiner and UNAC, informs them that Steiner’s office lease is to be terminated, and that he was required to relocate into the main office, (which an earlier report found to present substantial hostility to him and his work).
5/09 – UNAC files additional grievance on office lease termination, and this grievance is combined with academic freedom grievance.
6/09 – UAF Chancellor denies both grievances. Steiner is required to move out of office space while off-contract for summer.
7/09 – UNAC files final appeal for combined grievances to President of University of Alaska.
7/09 – At request of Chancellor, adverse review of post-tenure file by SFOS dean from 12/08 is removed from Steiner personnel file.
8/09 – University President appoints university General Counsel to hear final Steiner appeal. PEER notifies University President that his legacy in support of academic freedom will be determined by his ruling on the Steiner matter.
10/09 - University of Alaska-appointed investigator Roger Brunner finds adversely to Steiner's appeal.
Friday, October 23, 2009
UAF Prof. Rick Steiner, Stabbed in the Back by Gen. Mark Hamilton, May Be Leaving the University
In the first 48 hours of the Exxon Valdez oilspill, a lot of people went nuts. As a former Crowley Maritime mariner, I was called early in the morning and asked if I was available for work. I wasn't. The guy who called me at 5:00 a.m. then flew over from Anchorage to Valdez on that Good Friday morning to meet with a planning group about the "response." When he got back to Anchorage in the mid afternoon, he called me back. He was in tears. He told me that there was no response.
He also told me that flying with him on the plane over to Valdez were oil company attorneys and three people dressed in flannel shirts and Carrharts who had been hired by one of the oil companies to pose as environmentalists. Their job, as much as my friend could surmise, was to pose as environmentalists. They were going to object to the use of dispersants to deal with the spill, because their employers - the oil companies and Alyeska - didn't have enough to do the job. Not just in Alaska, but anywhere.
Thank God they didn't.
Other people had better plans on how to deal with the oil immediately, even though Alyeska, the State of Alaska, the U.S. Coast Guard and everyone else connected with real responsibility didn't have a fucking clue.
One, Cordova fisher Tom Copland, may have had the best idea of all. He was from the Skagit River valley in Washington, and had connections with the farming community. (He still does. He owns a bamboo farm.) What Tom suggested was that a large number of silage bags be flown up from Washington state. They could be trucked to Bellingham airport and packed onto C-130s and flown into Valdez. Cordova and Valdez-based seiners and tenders could be sent over to Valdez with their fish-sucking pumps. Each bag could hold about 200,000 gallons of oil and water. His idea was to get the stuff isolated and contained quickly, dirtily, before any spring winds would inevitably disburse the oil. Nobody in the response community listened. Copland's ingenious, perhaps brilliant idea perished.
Others in Cordova knew that the currents on Prince William Sound, should an initial response fail, would drive the oil stream straight toward the new fisher-owned hatchery at Sawmill Bay on the Southwest Sound. Perhaps the most influential among those concerned about saving the Sawmill Bay fish was Rick Steiner, who then ran the Cordova Sea Grant program. He led the team that organized and won the "Battle of Sawmill Bay."
They had materials flown into the hatchery complex. They made their own pollution control booms. They manned them for days as he oil slopped itself against, under and over their system. It wasn't perfect, but it worked far better than any other system deployed during the spill as a preventive or mitigating tool.
Rick Steiner continued to be right about just about everything he has done in the Alaska Sea Grant Program in the succeeding 20 years.
Between February 2009 and this week he has received his reward.
The University of Alaska, and - now, his union - have abandoned the fight to have at least one organization associated with him inside of Alaska stand up for his rights in his battle against the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to have their part of the funding for his UA position retained.
As of Friday, Steiner is contemplating resignation:
I just had a call from the faculty union at UA, and they are dropping my case, and not proceeding to arbitration...It seems their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the university is extraordinarily weak on issues of faculty rights.
So, this seems to be the 'end of the road' for me and the university. I pleaded with them at the union's Executive Board meeting today, but this was their decision entirely.
That the faculty union cannot protect faculty from such violations, is an ominous development. Obviously, their CBA is worthless on faculty rights. It is little more than the Alyeska contingency plan prior to Exxon Valdez.
So, I will be resigning from this institution soon. I will not compromise my professional ethics, integrity, nor compromise my work nor free expression to stay in this environment. But what I truly worry about is the cloud this leaves over this institution.
Thursday morning, as I drove to work at UAA, I spotted several work crews in the area between the new Conoco-Phillips Integrated Sciences Building and the library. They were carrying away downed trees, broken tree limbs and other natural debris from one of the open areas of remaining natural forest copses there. The reason was that within a few hours the grand opening of the science building was going to happen. Among the very important people attending would be Gen. Mark Hamilton, the President of the University of Alaska. Back in 2001, Hamilton was the recipient of a national award for his support of freedom of expression on his campuses.
When Gen. Hamilton received the award, he was lauded for his stance. I praised him then, and dedicated The Skies Are Weeping to Hamilton.
The organization that awarded him the honor, the National Association of Scholars, may not be the best org to credit Alaskans for their efforts though. Recently they posted an article called Sustainability is a Waste - 10 Reasons to Oppose the Sustainability Movement on Your Campus.
Here are their main points:
1. Sustainability is deceptive.
Sustainability is not just about practicing good stewardship of the environment. It is also a tool to advance progressive politics and ideology. The sustainability movement is a way for people with a hugely unpopular political program to get into positions of influence so that they can advance their cause despite lack of public support. On many campuses sustainability is marketed to students as saving energy and improving the environment, but turns out to involve projects that have nothing to do with the environment.
2. Sustainability is coercive.
Sustainability advocates assume that no one can legitimately disagree with their message. They therefore have no qualms about imposing their politics on students, faculty, and staff. If someone does disagree, they attack that person’s motives and ignore his actual points.
3. Sustainability is closed-minded.
Sustainability advocates put their hands over their ears and refuse to listen to people who point out contrary facts or who have different arguments. Sustainability in this sense is an ideology: it shuts out or explains away whatever doesn’t fit with its premises.
4. Sustainability is a pseudo-religion.
Some sustainability advocates tip over the edge of ideology into apocalyptic religion, complete with end-of-the-world scenarios, calls to repent, a new eco-morality, and worship of the Earth. This is a religion that misappropriates the ideas of “ethics,” ‘justice,” “social mandate,” and “the right thing” to shame people into compliance.
5. Sustainability distorts higher education.
Sustainability advocates don’t want to just add sustainability to the curriculum; they want to make it “thefoundation of all learning and practice in higher education.” How exactly does sustainability help you learn calculus, read Homer, or score well on the LSAT? College is also about preparing for adult responsibilities. How does making sustainability the foundation of higher education prepare you for those aspects of life not encompassed by recycling, green grocery bags, and compact fluorescent light bulbs?
6. Sustainability shrinks freedom.
Sustainability advocates don’t like free markets or personal liberty. They believe markets ignore long-term costs and people typically make bad choices. Instead of liberty, sustainability advocates praise “social justice” and “equitable distribution of resources” as the foundation of a sustainable society. These terms may sound nice but they point to governmental control over everyday life. Ultimately, the sustainability movement is about taking away your right to think and act for yourself.
7. Sustainability tries to program you.
The proponents of sustainability aim to have “all students engaged as effective change agents in our sustainability challenges.” This is another way of narrowing your education. Can’t students simply be students? What if your goal is to learn something about the world before attempting to change it?
8. Sustainability is anti-rational.
Some sustainability advocates—we call them sustainatopians—want to instill in students an emotional way of knowing the world that is “separate from the rational.” Many of them believe the industrial revolution was a mistake and would like to move beyond reason and science in favor of a combination of intuition and empathy. That runs counter to the basic purpose of higher education.
9. Sustainability bypasses the faculty.
Historically, college teachers have made the key decisions about what they teach. The sustainability movement on campus, however, took off when college administrators decided to push it. So far, 650 college presidents have signed a commitment to combat global warming and infuse sustainability into the curriculum.
10. Sustainability is wasteful.
Sustainability advocates pride themselves on taking the long view and minimizing waste. In fact the movement has a long history of extravagant and false predictions about natural resources, environmental perils, and the consequences of human actions. These predictions have resulted in vastly wasteful expenditures and diversions of human time and talent. Convincing college students to squander their opportunity for a real education is only the most recent example.
I love it when the Orwhellians claim to be fighting Owellianism.
The defenders of UA's and his union's refusal to support Steiner's plea to NOAA will probably claim that his salary wasn't reduced and that his office move might have been a cost reduction move, or some other diversionary screed. They'll say that his impending protest resignation is theater, or "guerilla theater."
The reality, though, is that a person who has contributed immensely to Alaska's true wealth and sustainability has been screwed.
Back in 1989, the year that Steiner helped win the Battle of Sawmill Bay, I wrote Sphinx Island Elegy for the Anchorage Symphony Orchestra. It was about the Exxon Valdez spill. The concert at which it premiered in October 1989, was introduced by Don Cornett, Exxon's Alaska head and their chief local liar during the response period. In his introduction, he promised Exxon would fulfill the vow they had made back in March and April to Cordovans in the shocked town's high school gym, to "Make you whole."
What Rick Steiner is now being brought through isn't unique in Alaska or elsewhere. It hasn't been covered well yet by Alaska media or blogs, though. I've wondered why. Rick's case is compelling.