Dear HCN,
I
read with great interest the cover article titled “Teach the
children well” in the March 26 issue of High Country News. This
subject is near and dear to me, as for many years I directed the
water education program for the Utah Division of Water Resources. I
was troubled, though, by what appeared to be an underlying message
that we should distrust and disregard any information received from
corporations. Even the subtitle itself (“Corporations,
environmentalists vie for students’ minds”) prepares the
reader for an exposé of “bad vs. good,” or “lies vs. truth.”
The bitter conflict between John Muir and
Gifford Pinchot beginning in the last part of the 19th century
certainly continues today. Initially, though, the disciples of each
seemed to be a little more honest: those of Muir had no
reservations about calling themselves preservationists, while those
of Pinchot openly promoted increased use (albeit with the qualifier
“wise”) of the resources. Now both are struggling for sole
possession of the label conservationist.
For
better or worse, environmental education is controversial. Most
would agree that the purpose of environmental education is to
inform people of the facts so that better decisions can be made.
But ecology is not an exact science; ecosystems are too complex and
changes too slow to permit verification of predictions with what
would normally be considered acceptable certainty. And decisions
about development of natural resources must be made, whether or not
we have all the facts we would like. Enter the hidden agenda of
values.
Though most of us would like to think
we’re objective, we all have ideas about what is “good.”
But because, ” ‘good’ is in the eyes of the
beholder,” it’s very difficult to prove to others that
our particular concept of “good” is the right one. Where the
definition of “good” can have serious effects on something we hold
dear (as when a wood-products company proposes clear-cutting a
particular stand of timber), we often resort to obfuscating the
issue by stating as fact what we in our hearts know to be
speculation. (Like insisting that stand of timber is essential for
the survival of a particular species. Or vice versa: opposing
wilderness designation because it would “destroy” the local
economy.)
I’m not particularly
troubled when a layman takes this approach (often it just reflects
ignorance), but I feel a professional must be held to a higher
standard: The public has reason to trust him. Consequently, there
would be nothing wrong with John Borowski lecturing to his class
about the necessity of protecting “ancient forests,” but he
certainly owes it to them to state how much of this is personal
opinion, and how much is backed up by hard data. Of course,
professionals expounding wise use (often the corporations) should
be held to the same standard.
So what is the
unsuspecting student to do? The older he/she is, the more he/she
should be capable of winnowing fact from fancy. Because the
environment is such a controversial subject, college students
should be encouraged to take everything about that subject with a
grain of salt, whether the information comes from Exxon or the
Sierra Club. As for the younger students (particularly in
elementary and junior high schools), they’re helpless.
And that’s why it’s so important for
professionals to put their personal biases behind them and stick to
the facts. It may take a little longer, but truth will win out in
the end.
Barry C. Saunders
Salt Lake City, Utah
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Bias doesn’t belong in environmental education.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
