What do you think?
As a former environmental educator, I think it is very important that we as educators separate advocacy from education. At the Environmental Education Association of WA’s first conferences in the early 1990s we discussed the distinction a lot. Working at North Cascades Institute and now at another nonprofit, we always have to make the distinction between education and advocacy for the content our EE programs.
EE programs that we all work with have an environmental impact and environmental initiatives are often controversial because people hold very different opinions based on different values. Those values come from different life experiences in family, community, cultural groups, training and education, political power, history of property ownership, etc.
Controversy is inherent in a free democratic society and the discussion of controversial issues is essential to decision making in a free society. More than a discussion of controversial issues is needed.
Citizens need to understand the environmental issues and problems facing their community and of the options available in addressing them. THIS IS Education.
Advocacy is an important activity, and advocacy programs must provide individuals with opportunities to identify, investigate, and participate in the resolution of environmental issues and problems on their land and in their community. But in dealing with these issues through true environmental education, the atmosphere should be as neutral and objective as possible. Environmental educators must be familiar with all sides of issues, bringing all sides into educational programs, and must stand firm for each advocate’s right to be heard and express opinions based firmly on objective information.
This is an interesting topic and I would welcome a continuing dialogue among the EE community—on the distinction between EE and Advocacy! Thanks for everyone’s thoughts on this!
Wendy Scherrer, Executive Director
Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association (NSEA)
Bellingham, WA
“Neutrality” and “objectivity” may be quite overrated and in fact, are most likely obstacles to the truth. We are thinking, feeling, breathing beings who are immersed in life-threatening issues every day as our planet’s life-support systems are being trashed. I don’t want emotion removed from the discussion. I don’t want people to remain in the middle. I want to hear the issues, to discuss them with other like-minded and not-so-like-minded individuals, and learn about positions.
Claims of neutrality and objectivity have heralded in the most devastating technologies and actions of our time.
Also, “lobbyist” is not a bad word. Our system of government depends on lobbyists, or advocates, for every position on every issue. That is the only way that we can have non-expert representatives. The problem is usually that only the large industries get this and allocate budgets to support this very legitimate process. The large environmental support groups understand this, but somehow, many folks think it is a bad thing to pay someone to advocate a position. This is the primary reason why environmental degradation continues virtually unchecked. And because so many environmental educators fail to teach this, we keep turning out students who don’t get it either.
Some people lose way too much sleep trying to figure out if advocacy should be part of education. I find that aspect of the debate a no-brainer, so to speak. A skilled educator is not at all afraid to voice his or her beliefs while educating. If we don’t model for our students (of any age) how to examine an issue, learn about it, take a position, and work for the change you want, why do we bother?
Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “The question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be.”
Jackie Alan Giuliano, Ph.D.
Faculty, University of Phoenix
Columnist, Environment News Service
This is an interesting topic and one that I grapple with frequently. This post reflects my internal debate. It is meant to be soul-searching, rhetorical, and not critical.
I agree that environmental educators should try to fairly present all the diverse viewpoints that surround controversial issues. But I think it can be ok for educators to share their beliefs and opinions.
If the goal of environmental education is to get people to think and come up with their own conclusions, then taking a neutral approach to controversial issues is the right course. This is based on faith that when people are presented with all the facts, they will make rational and wise choices. It is also based on the belief that people with opposing beliefs should be treated with respect and have the right to be heard.
But what if one’s goal is primarily for the protection of the environment? It is still important to present all views, but some of the views are going to be better for the environment. People are not the only ones with rights. The environment has rights that in some cases, supercede or are closely aligned to human rights. But until a critical mass of people accepts this view and we evolve a social system that adequately protects the rights of the environment not only for the “commonwealth” but for its own sake, advocates are our standard bearers.
Mary Knackstedt, Environmental Education Specialist
Puget Sound Action Team
Office of the Governor
(360) 725-5457
mknackstedt@psat.wa.gov; http://www.psat.wa.gov