What Do Faculty Owe Future Generations?

What do faculty owe future generations?

I’m a millennial faculty member. The millennial generation – also known as Generation Y – came of age with 9/11, followed by the US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and then the 2007/8 financial crisis. While we were growing up, promises of perpetual progress and prosperity abounded. However, as we entered adulthood, we confronted the harmful realities and precarious nature of the prevailing social and economic system. It became clear to many of us that these were not only false promises but they also came at a high cost. Yet when we expressed our disillusionment, some from previous generations suggested our generation was the problem, not the system itself.

I have been able to connect with many of my students over this shared experience. My home academic department exclusively offers graduate programs, so for the first part of my career, most of my students were fairly close to me in age. For these students, my invitation to engage critically and self-reflexively with existing systems has been generally well-received. But last year, I taught my first undergraduate course, made up primarily of the generation that followed mine, Generation Z (“Gen Z”).

Most undergraduate students today are from Gen Z, and they will soon make up an increasing number of graduate students, too. Teaching Gen Z, just one generation removed from mine, was a learning curve. Issues of social and ecological justice that were important to me have an even deeper urgency for them. Initially, I did not fully appreciate the differences between their experiences and those of my generation, and because of this, it took me a while to gain their trust. I realized how easy it was to do to Gen Z students what others had done to my generation: minimize their concerns and fail to recognize the underlying reasons for their frustration, fear, and grief.

Facing difficult truths

After centuries of people borrowing (some might say, stealing) from the future to pay for comforts in the present, the bill is coming due, and it is younger generations who will have to pick up the tab. In brief, this is because our finite Earth cannot sustain an economic system premised on infinite growth and consumption. Young people are acutely aware of this. In a recent survey of youth from 10 countries, 75% said they think the future is frightening and 83% said people have failed to take care of the planet.

As a result, many young people are asking us to see what we would rather not see, to turn toward things as they are, rather than as we would like them to be. They are asking us to admit to ourselves what they cannot deny: that escalating wars, economic inequality, extreme weather, biodiversity loss, food insecurity, and mental health crises are a product of our existing system; that the problems created by this system cannot be addressed using only the tools created by the system itself; and that there is a very real possibility of social and ecological collapse within their lifetimes, if not ours.

This is not something most faculty are generally interested in hearing. While some parts of us may be aware that things cannot continue as they are, our other, less mature parts tend to deny the potential for collapse because we fear being overwhelmed and immobilized by the depth and magnitude of the problem. That is an understandable fear, but it is not a legitimate justification for denial. To ignore these concerns is not only a mistake but also a refusal of our responsibilities as educators, and as human beings.

Accepting the stark realities of our collective predicament is not just about confronting the unsustainability of our current system. It is also about un-numbing to the pain that comes with possible systemic collapse, as well as to the pain that has already been created by this system. This includes the pain we ourselves have caused, given that centuries of economic growth in the Global North have been directly enabled by exploitation, extraction, and expropriation in the Global South, and in Indigenous communities around the world. In this way, at the same time as we accept the possibility of systemic collapse, we would need to also accept responsibility for many collapses that have already happened – the ecocides, genocides, and epistemicides – so that the beneficiaries of the current system could enjoy ever-expanding comforts and securities.

The education of older generations, including my own, has not prepared most faculty to hold these harsh truths and process these heavy emotions in generative ways, and thus, the education we offer our students is not preparing them to do so either. However, many students are seeking this kind of support. Thus, it is no surprise when they question the relevance of the education they are currently receiving. Effectively, we are educating people to “refine a system that operates by undermining the conditions of possibility for our biophysical survival.” As one student put it,

“Should we even be wasting these last fleeting years of our youth in a classroom when our elected leaders are leading us down a path toward total climate collapse?”

This is not just about the content we include in our courses, but also whether we make space in classrooms and campuses for students to pose challenging and uncomfortable questions. Recently, we have seen a rise in the suppression of students’ academic freedom. In response, a student in one of my courses observed,

“While education should be a realm of openness and exploration, the current situation suggests the opposite, creating uncertainty about where I stand in this educational equation.”

Holding space for unanswerable questions

We do not have to agree with everything our students say or believe in order to create educational spaces in which they can ask difficult questions of us, themselves, and the world around them. In my experience, the most important thing for many students is not that we agree with them, but that we be brave enough to walk alongside them as they meet the many unknowns and unknowables of the current moment. However, this request is not necessarily welcomed by those of us who were socialized to expect comfort, security, certainty, and the affirmation of our intelligence and relevance.

Thus, to collectively navigate current and coming challenges with our students, faculty would need to deepen our capacity to hold what is complex, heavy, uncertain, and uncomfortable. We would also need to develop the stamina to continue this work when it feels easier to just enjoy the excesses of the current system for as long as they last. And we would need to accept responsibility for unpaid intergenerational debts, but also the debts that are owed by the Global North to the Global South, and by settlers to Indigenous Peoples. When discussions about these responsibilities arise, many of us focus on what we stand to lose. But what might we gain if instead, we accepted young people’s invitation for us to grow up and face our complicity in harm?

Last fall, I attended a conference and was asked to present on a panel with fellow Gen Y scholars. The discussant, a professor from Gen W (the generation born in the years following World War II), noted with gratitude that they felt genuinely challenged by our papers. In their closing remarks, they encouraged us to respond with the same level of compassion and humility when the next generation of scholars inevitably challenges us: to welcome not just new ideas, but also the general spirit that it is possible, and often necessary, to do things differently than we have done.

This professor’s example of academic “eldership” gave me a glimpse of how intergenerational relationships in the academy could be otherwise – more generous, self-reflexive, and accountable. It would not be easy, but it is possible to create the conditions in which we can have difficult conversations without relationships falling apart. If we can learn to do this, we will likely be better prepared to coordinateresponses to complex challenges in ways that prioritize the well-being of current and coming generations of human and other-than-human beings. Systemic violence and ecological catastrophe did not begin with my generation, nor with any of the generations that are alive today. But we have a responsibility to make different choices than those that came before us, rather than continuing to pursue the same perceived entitlements.

Stepping back and showing up

I do not romanticize younger generations, believe they have “the answers”, or place all hope for the future in their hands. Doing so would be naive of me, and unfair to them – a deflection of my own and other generations’ responsibility for engaging in the tough work ahead. We are all part of the problem, and we are all still learning.

None of us know exactly what to do in this liminal space between a system in decline and whatever comes next. But we each have a small role to play as we figure it out and we have much to learn from each other in the process. This may be uncomfortable for professors who have crafted not only our professional identities but also in many cases our self-images around being the ones with “the answers.” Thus, we would need to lose our academic arrogance by stepping back from familiar patterns and showing up instead with humility as the full, flawed people that we are if we want to do the intergenerational relationship-building that is needed in this transitional moment.

This includes holding space for young people to process their fears, grief, insecurities, and traumas. Older generations would need to process our own as well and to share the insights from that processing with younger generations. Together, we might collectively learn from the mistakes of the existing system so that we do not repeat them, discern what from that system should be preserved and what needs to be “composted,” and develop a practice of ongoing collective experimentation with emerging possibilities that will inevitably lead to new mistakes but also new learning.

If all generations could commit to this work, together we might have a chance of interrupting the cycle of irresponsibility and immaturity that led us to this crisis point in the first place, and enabling something different and possibly wiser to emerge. Although faculty are not required to do this work as part of our formal job responsibilities, current and future generations will pay the price if we don’t. We owe each other more than that.

ClimateFRAUD

Unmasking Climate Deception: The ClimateFraud Framework

ClimateFRAUD is a draft framework that can be used to identify false solutions proposed in the context of the climate and nature emergency (CNE). It was originally created by the Federation of the Huni Kui Indigenous Peoples of Acre, in the Amazon, and collaboratively redesigned in the context of the Moving With Storms CNE Program of the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies, at the University of British Columbia.

The draft framework spotlights not just the actions of governments, corporations, and NGOs, but also those of the broader public. Many of these actions seemingly offer solutions, but in reality, they perpetuate a reckless, violent and unsustainable economic system. This system, founded on exponential growth, extraction, and overconsumption, has been responsible for dispossession, destitution, genocides, and ecocides, and is now placing humanity on the path of premature extinction.

It is not rocket science: if our economic system exceeds the planet’s boundaries, the system must be overhauled. Simply put, the market and the paradigms that have created and that exacerbate the problem ultimately cannot save us from climate disaster or ecological devastation.

The ClimateFRAUD draft framework challenges the prevalent narratives of techno-solutionism and greenwashing, urging us to question the allure of quick fixes that fail to address the systemic root causes of the massive challenges we are facing as a species. We are piloting the draft framework until October 30, 2023 and we invite your feedback on its relevance and use below.

C – Carbon colonialism (CO2lonialism)
L – Land-grabbing
I – Indigenous cooptation
M – Mandatory growth and consumerism
A – Absurd Promises of Carbon Sequestration
T – Toxic hope in the continuity of violent and unsustainable systems
E – Externalization of costs
F – Financialization of nature
R – Regulatory loopholes
A – Arrogant techno-solutionism and techno-salvationism
U – Ubiquitous greenwashing
D – Distorted narratives and deceptive claims

C – Carbon colonialism: the appropriation of land and resources in the Global South to fulfill the carbon dioxide reduction demands of the Global North. Under the guise of carbon offsetting, the Global North perpetuates business-as-usual practices of exploitation, extraction, and expropriation, effectively treating the Global South as a carbon dump. This unequal arrangement allows wealthy nations to avoid and evade their responsibilities for reducing emissions while further burdening vulnerable communities in the Global South with the consequences of climate change and environmental degradation.

L – Land-grabbing: the unjust acquisition or occupation of land and natural resources for purported climate initiatives, such as green energy projects. This often happens without meaningful engagement with affected communities, particularly Indigenous and local peoples, without their free, prior, and informed consent, and without adequate protections and government oversight. Land grabbing results in displacement and often forced labor, as well as threats to cultural sites and traditions, including traditional ways of land management that also protect long-term food sovereignty. This dynamic creates “green sacrifice zones” that perpetuate environmental racism and contribute to energy inequity.

I – Indigenous cooptation: the strategic mobilization of Indigenous individuals and groups by governments and corporations to endorse deceptive climate solutions, aiming to appease criticism from Indigenous communities advocating for genuine ecological protection. This pattern involves manipulating community engagement or leaders to prioritize and emphasize the short-term financial benefits of false solutions while obscuring and downplaying the externalized and future risks and costs of these initiatives.

M – Mandatory growth and consumerism: the perpetuation of endless economic growth and consumerism as non-negotiable components of what are deemed acceptable climate “solutions”. This pattern reflects a deeply ingrained belief that growth and consumption are indispensable for underwriting societal progress and well-being, despite the evident consequences of overshooting the planet’s ecological limits.

A – Absurd promises of carbon sequestration: The propagation of unrealistic and exaggerated claims surrounding large-scale carbon sequestration technologies. By promoting carbon sequestration as a panacea for the problem of carbon emissions, this pattern diverts attention from the critical need to address emissions at their source, thereby hindering meaningful climate action and perpetuating the status quo of unsustainable economic growth and consumption.

T – Toxic hope in (and desire for) the continuity of violent and unsustainable systems: the detrimental belief in the possibility of sustaining the current trajectory of existing systems and institutions through minor fixes and superficial measures, perpetuating the illusion of a sustainable future. Toxic hope focuses on superficial measures while ignoring or deferring necessary transformative changes in societal values and behaviours, preventing meaningful movement towards addressing the climate and biodiversity crises at their roots and leaving people unequipped to face the difficult and painful dimensions of reality.

E – Externalization of costs: the unethical practice of shifting environmental and social burdens onto systemically marginalized communities so that systemically advantaged communities can continue their existing consumption levels without consequence. This can be seen in the mining of minerals for green technologies, carbon trading, green energy projects like hydropower dams and wind farms that disrupt fragile ecosystems and food sources, and e-waste disposal in the Global South. It can also be seen in extending timeframes and deferring action addressing the crisis that disproportionately threatens systematically marginalized communities.

F – Financialization of nature: the commodification, monetization, and commercialization of nature, treating it solely as a financial asset for profit. This pattern prioritizes economic gains over genuine environmental protection and perpetuates the harmful separation of humans from nature. Many Indigenous communities attribute the climate and biodiversity crises to this imposed sense of separation and the reduction of nature to mere property to be owned and exploited by humans.

R – Regulatory loopholes: the crafty exploitation of gaps in government regulations and policies that enable companies to sidestep their responsibilities and evade the necessary actions to meaningfully address their contributions to the climate crisis. For instance, some corporations may take advantage of weak emissions reporting requirements, allowing them to understate their environmental impact and continue business as usual without making substantial changes.

A – Arrogant technosolutionism and technosalvationism: the unwarranted confidence in technological solutions as the sole answer to the complex challenges posed by the climate and biodiversity crises, disregarding the necessity for comprehensive systemic changes. Emphasizing technology in depoliticized ways without addressing historical and systemic inequalities and broader social, economic, and cultural issues perpetuates the notion that quick-fix solutions can single-handedly address the complexities of these crises, while reinforcing the objectification and instrumentalization of nature.

U – Ubiquitous greenwashing: Represents the pervasive practice of using deceptive environmental claims to present governments, corporations and organizations as environmentally friendly, while substantial changes to their practices remain lacking. Greenwashing is a marketing tactic to improve a public image while preventing the cultural shifts that are necessary to interrupt the continuity of violent and unsustainable systems.

D – Distorted narratives and deceptive claims: Denotes the intentional manipulation of information and communication to present a distorted view of climate-related issues, policies, or technologies. Astroturf organizations, as a significant manifestation of this pattern, are deliberately formed or financially supported to simulate grassroots movements and public support for specific climate policies or technologies, including obfuscating systemic harm with tokenistic claims of intersectional empowerment (eg. claiming to empower women entrepreneurs). Employing various tactics, such as paid social media campaigns, fake online personas, and orchestrated letter-writing campaigns, these astroturf groups aim to create the illusion of widespread backing while concealing their true origins and motivations.

See also:

Questions for analyzing climate and nature emergency (CNE)-related resources

Note: Not all questions will be relevant to all resources

Diagnosis/analysis offered

  • What/who is identified as the primary/root cause(s) of the CNE?
  • Who/what is presented as experiencing the biggest impacts of the CNE? (e.g “nature”, non-human animals, humanity, specific human communities or generations, etc)?
  • To what extent are the unevenly distributed impacts of the CNE acknowledged? To what extent are unevenly distributed responsibilities for the CNE acknowledged?
  • What are identified are the primary barriers to addressing the CNE?

Propositions/responses offered

  • To what extent is it presumed that the most desirable outcome is “business as usual, but greener” – i.e., the existing system continues, but becomes more sustainable? (Note: this might be presented as the desired outcome even if it is also acknowledged within the resource that this is not actually feasible)
  • To what extent is the CNE presented and engaged with as a discrete problem to be solved versus an ongoing predicament to be grappled with?
  • Does the resource propose a solution to the CNE?
    • If it does propose a solution, to what extent is that solution posed as the solution (i.e., universal)? Is a particular individual, group, or community presumed to have the solution?
    • Consider the elements of the proposed solution: What does it assume? What is it invested in? What does it seek to achieve? Who proposed it? In whose name? For whose benefit? At whose expense?
    • If it does not propose a solution, does it nonetheless propose some kind of response? What is the nature of this response?

General questions

  • Who is the presumed reader/audience of the resource? Is this stated or implied (and if stated, is this the same as the implied audience?)? To what extent is the existence of other audiences acknowledged?
  • To what extent and in what ways does the resource also address other ‘wicked’ social and ecological challenges, and the relationship of the CNE to these challenges (e.g. racial injustice, economic inequality, etc)?
  • Which dimensions of the CNE does the resource address:
    • Physical/ecological
    • Political
    • Psychological
    • Economic
    • Relational
    • Intellectual
    • Existential
    • Others?
    • If the resource addresses more than one of these dimensions, to what extent are these addressed in integrated ways versus treated as separate/discrete?
  • To what extent does the resource acknowledge/create room for:
    • Complexity?
    • Uncertainty?
    • Contradiction?
    • Partiality? (i.e. the non-universal, situated nature of all knowledge/perspectives)
    • Provisionality? (i.e. recognition that relevance is relative to a particular time, place, and context, and is not permanent, but rather subject to change)
    • Plurivocality? (i.e. the fact that there are multiple co-existing perspectives)
    • Polysemy? (i.e. the fact that the same word/idea can have multiple meanings)
  • Is the focus of the resource more local, more global, or a combination of both?

Politics of knowledge

  • To what extent does the author/creator implicate themselves in the causes of the CNE?
  • To what extent does the author/creator implicate their audience in the causes of the CNE?
  • To what extent is personal responsibility emphasized compared to systemic responsibility? To what extent is individual action emphasized compared to collective action?
  • Which/whose (climate-related) knowledges and perspectives are considered relevant? Which/whose knowledges and perspective are centered Which/whose knowledges and perspective are absent? Which/whose knowledges are considered, but in tokenistic/superficial ways?
  • How do you think your positionality (e.g. race, class, gender, nationality, generation) has shaped how you analyzed the resource and answered these questions? How do you know? Can you think of a friend, colleague, or acquaintance that might answer them differently? What are the implications of these differences for your ability to collaborate around these issues?

Temporality

  • How does the resource represent or relate to the future? The past? The present?
  • What is its temporal focus (e.g., past, present, future, a combination of these)?
  • Does the piece locate a starting point of the CNE, and if so, when?

Spam prevention powered by Akismet