Tuesday, November 18, 2008

The Green Tree has Red Roots: The Sustainability Scam on Campus

"Do not trust the horse, Trojans [Salukis]! Whatever it is, I fear the Greeks [Greens], even bringing gifts."

On college campuses, the far Left rarely engages in open debate on the issues of the day. Why debate the other side when you can charge students to support the causes you embrace? The key is dressing your agenda with warm and fuzzy terms like "diversity," "inclusion," and--most recently--"Green" initiatives promoting "sustainability." [Green in the generic sense, not the Green Party]

Troy fell to the ruse of a Trojan Horse and the analogy is apt in the case of "sustainability" and its third circle ("social justice"). In Europe, critics of the Green movement contend that "the Green tree has Red (socialist) roots." Translation: Green has a helluva lot more to do with left-wing politics than it has to do with the environment.

The pleasant-sounding talk of mandatory "green fees" pays for more than planting trees, recycling garbage and other noncontroversial initiatives. SIU-Carbondale raises $300,000 a year from student "green fees." If you don't like what they do with the $$$, "tough." Project Eco-Dawgs cleverly set up the fee to be permanent (at least five years) and repealed only if both student governments approve a reversal.

Watch out! The Eco Dawgs lobbied for money from students, and now are getting ready to slide fees by employees, create a salaried position for "Sustainability" and more! If you don't believe me, read here

What do students and staff get for this money? Part of the Eco Dawg agenda deals with energy conservation and Green issues on campus. Dig deeper and see how the Eco Dawgs ally SIUC with far Left activists--all without full disclosure, except to a handful of individuals on the Eco Dawg Task Force.

Project Eco Dawgs has already laid the groundwork by publishing a guide that embraces the Talloires Declaration by "university leaders" declaring the "environmental pollution and degradation, and the depletion of natural resources" . . . "are caused by inequitable and unsustainable production and consumption patterns that aggravate poverty in many regions of the world." The Red faction of the Green movement has been preaching this vision of apocalypse for decades, while market capitalism has actually diminished poverty in "many regions of the world" (China, India, and other countries that abandoned the myth of a zero-sum society). There is an "inequitable production and consumption" of doom and gloom on college campuses.

Keep your eyes on the "Sustainability" menu: lots of Greenery, with a healthy offering of "labor rights," "reproductive rights" (abortion), domestic violence, and assaults on "late capitalism."

Since the Greens scammed students already, the rest of us must be alert to efforts to impose mandatory fees upon employees--particularly for causes with which many might not agree. If you support (or oppose) these causes, then send your money voluntarily to the organization of your choice.

Meanwhile, beware of Greens bearing old wine in new wineskins.


Old Man Winter said...

If the posted assessment proves to be correct--and given SIUC's propensity to subsume almost every facet of campus life to left wing ideologies that have nothing to do with liberalism--I will feel an ever deeper sense of despair."

Leland said...

According to the Sustainability website:

"Students voted overwhelmingly - 996 to 372 - in favor of the fee."

When I was there SIU had nearly 20,000 students. Math is not my strong point, but my calculator tells me the "Yeas" accounted for .05 percent of the student body. Let's not get carried away with the concept of overwhelming.

omw said...

Apathy among students is apparently a perpetual given. Four years ago, I offered extra credit to my students if they would register for voting and more still if they actually cast a ballot. Some registered, but didn't vote while others didn't even bother to register. They made these decisions in the middle of a war in which proposals were being offered to reinstitute a draft!

More recently, I spoke with a colleague who asked her students to raise their hands if they were, in fact, registered. From approximately 40 total, all of 5 indicated they were eligible and planned to participate in a singularly vital election that would effect the rest of their lives.

Is there anything we older types can do? I don't think so beyond every two years offering extra credit enticements and practically begging students to actually go to vote. If they won't do so en masse for President, I can't see a massive outpouring for a campus election that promised necessary change, but may well deliver another vehicle for the academic Thought, Language and Speech Police to continue to destroy what remains of those who wish to puruse truth wherever it may lead.

Anonymous said...

If it makes you feel better, OMW, 85% of my students were registered to vote at the start of the semester, and several more registered in time for the election. We may see a new beginning with these folks. Now, all we have to do is encourage more self-sufficiency. They're so accustomed to having everyone do everything for them that it's becoming a handicap.

Anonymous said...

I didn't detect any "red roots" when I visited SIU's sustainability web site. The focus seems to be on making the campus operations more efficent, promoting the use of renewable energy, incorporating green principles into the curriculum and using natural resources wisely.

Sounds like a pretty good proposition to me. In fact, Wal-Mart, Shell, GE ("Eco-imagination"), BP and other Fortune 500 companies are embracing sustainability. I think it is good that SIU is jumping on the bandwagon.