Collateral Environmentalism

The first chapter of B'reshit, or Genesis, wri...
Image via Wikipedia

Warning:  Theology based rant!

I loved teaching the book of Genesis.  I enjoyed taking a text that so many of my students felt comfortable with and helping them develop a new perspective for evaluating the text.  I find Genesis to be the introduction to how to read the entire Bible- it establishes themes and motifs that are repeated throughout the text and once you can begin to understand how they were intended to be read in Genesis, you can then understand how later stories were to be read.   Genesis reads like a great novel- sex, war, betrayal, romance- it has it all, including environmental responsibility.  I’ve never been mistaken for a zealous, tree-hugging, hippy environmentalist, but my students may have questioned my tree-hugging status.  In Genesis, we are called to have “dominion” over all of creation (Genesis 1:28 NRSV), to rule over creation just as an effective king would rule over his people.  As we see with David and Saul (examples can be found throughout Judges, I and II Samuel, I and II Kings), an effective king is not one who rules with a selfish hunger for power (as we see leads to the fall of Saul) but one who rules with careful care over the people who are given into his care always mindful of the will of the creator who blessed him with that position.  The same goes with our call to the environment: we are to care for the environment and not abuse it selfishly.

After over a hundred years of fossil fuel consumption, we have a need to find alternative fuels and energy sources.  We drive vehicles that are not all that different than those first Model T’s to roll off Henry Ford’s assembly line.  Even hybrid and electric vehicles still drive on the same consumption and waste principles that have driven the auto industry into near financial ruin.  While we are working toward redesigning our entire infrastructure, we need to be doing our part to make changes where we have the power to make changes.  Look in our classrooms- are we recycling or are we printing out unnecessarily and then tossing those pages in the trash?  What lesson are we teaching to our students?  One of my biggest questions is “why do we take biodegradable trash and shove it into non-biodegradable trash bags?”  As I drive down the street, walls of 55-gallon trash bags crammed full of leaves create walls on either side of the road.  While at a park I watched as a young woman picked up her puppy’s “droppings” and placed them in a plastic bag and then tied it off before throwing it into another trash bag in a public trash can.  Why?  My kids have guilted me into recycling, but at the same time I still throw out at least five bags a week full of biodegradable trash.  It’s time we started taking a bigger stance so that our children learn from our example.  Is the solution biodegradable trash bags, less packaging on our products, less consumption, or maybe an all-out change of perspective?  Maybe we should rethink our infrastructure all together and become the leaders in transportation, technology, and growth once again.  We ought not look at becoming paperless and moving toward alternative fuels simply because it would save us money, rather we need to be evaluating whether or not these policies are a proper way of caring for our dominion.

The “T” Word

I love Olympic season.  I find myself watching sports I would otherwise have absolutely no interest in.  I watch sports that I have no clue about, trying to decipher the rules from watching the competition.  When I can’t figure it out, then I jump over to Wikipedia and “poof”- I’m an expert.  The Beijing Olympics are no different- cheering Phelps on to his 8th gold medal, cringing as Special Ed jumps the water in Equestrian (I know nothing about Equestrian, but the horse’s name gave me a chuckle!), and watching our men’s and women’s basketball teams put a hurting on the world.  I love the sportsmanship players show to one another, like Dara Torres telling everyone to hold up while another swimmer had to fix a torn suit.  The Olympics are great- for a couple of short weeks people show that when we find commonality- whether it be in basketball, volleyball, swimming, equestrian, or whatever- our political and personal differences are put aside (well, except for that little invasion issue between Russia and Georgia…)

But one word keeps being repeated over and over again.  This is a word that ranks right up there with the “N” word, any of the “four letter words,” and maybe even George Carlin’s seven “Filthy Words”- the “T” word.  Now, the “T” word is one we’ve all become accustomed to using and have often been told that it is something that we’re supposed to have.  I remember helping to run a freshman retreat at an all-boys Catholic school and it was one of the 3 “T’s” they were taught- alongside Teamwork and Truthfulness.  Maybe it’s just me, but the “T” word grates at me as insulting and harsh.  The word, as innocent as it may seem, is “Toleration.”

“Toleration” is thrown around blindly as a synonym for “Acceptance” when in fact it’s much more like “Enduring.”  I “tolerate” wearing a tie to work every day.  I don’t like it, in fact I voice my displeasure with having to wear the pretentious noose around my neck, but I wear it because that is what the rules say I have to do.  I “tolerate” the heat here in Memphis.  I don’t like it and I (like everyone else in this city), complain about how bad the heat is, but I put up with it because my family, friends and Church are here.  To “tolerate” someone who is ethnically, socially, culturally, or religiously different from yourself implies that you don’t like it, but at least you’ll endure putting up with them because you have to.  Maybe if we quit trying to “tolerate” everyone that’s not like us, we could actually move toward “accepting.”

Photo from:
midiman’s photostream

Going Back and Forth

I think I’m finally beginning to recuperate from last week’s Laptop Institute. There’s something about working 16 to 20 hour days- it takes me a bit longer to get back into the swing of things now. Now that the conference is over and we’ve begun looking toward next year, I finally have a few moments to reflect on my Ethics session. My plan had been to look at how trends in technology and ethical behavior give proof to a cyclical connection between the two: As technology advances and is a virtual free-for-all, unethical behavior leads to the establishment of an organized understanding of the technology which leads to further technological advancement. For example: Napster in the late 90’s early 00’s was a free-for-all with the illegal sharing of music. The illegal downloading of digital music led to legal crackdowns, but since digital music had become such a mainstay in the way people listened to music, a legal form (Rhapsody, iTunes, etc) formed. If we take this trend and apply it to other technological situations we see similar outcomes: YouTube, MySpace, Facebook, etc- all are on the verge of evolving further.

My session had intended to look at this further and then attempt to scrutinize how to best use these resources but it turned into something more. Something much more important to teachers: how to legally use copyrighted materials. The confusion that exists about if and how to use copyrighted materials is due to the confusing nature of the laws. Teachers can claim “Fair Use” on some items, but overall it sounds as if “Fair Use” is a catch-all category when we’re not really sure what to do and hope we won’t get into trouble when we’re caught. My general rules with my teachers for fair use are:

1.  Must be used in an educational setting (not just for entertainment)
2.  You cannot intend to sell the work or distribute it freely.
3.  Only use a portion of the music, video, etc that you need- not the whole thing
(I think the rule is 10% or 30 seconds, whichever is less).
4.  Try looking for public domain and “share alike” Creative Commons material first!
5.  Give credit where credit is due- always cite your sources.

The more I think back to the great discussion we had the more I see the conflict and the struggle that teachers are facing with “Fair Use.”

Picture:
huskyboy’s flickr photostream

Let the Flinging Commence…

While perusing my feeds (okay, cleaning out the 1000+ that have built up over the past week) there is a bit of a buzz around the blogosphere regarding the Google/Viacom debacle. Let’s face it- the free for all on YouTube has been officially over for some time, but the reality is that when a site is as wide open as YouTube is, it is inevitable that people will violate the rules and post whatever they see fit. The definition of copyright has changed and is constantly changing even though the laws which govern copyright have not become fluid enough to account for the issues that will be arising as the internet continues to grow. It seems that some have gotten the clue: HBO, for example, has its own YouTube Channel as do a number of other sites (70 Signs of Intelligent Life on YouTube from Open Culture). Do a search and you’ll find over 5400 uploads for “Comedy Central” most likely “illegally” posted and soon to be subject to Viacom’s Gestapo-esque search through Google’s records In their defense, Viacom has YouTube-like video archives on their sites where you can access such classics as Stephen Colbert’s The WORD clip on Wikiality as well as MTV bits. Here’s my take (for anyone who actually cares!), Viacom understands more than Google wants to claim or give them credit for (YouTube Lawsuit Threatens the Net) about the net. Sure, Viacom may not be exploiting the full potential of the web by limiting the usage of their videos, but at the same time, they are making some of those videos available. Maybe if we could get a reign on the free-for-all, issues such as this wouldn’t arise when people get a bit out of hand.

Picture Credit:
jonaldinger’s photostream on Flickr

Re: Where’s the Line

In putting together my notes for the presentation I’m giving on “Ethics in the Digital Age” at the Laptop Institute in Memphis, TN, I ran across a posting from David Warlick.  I had the pleasure of meeting David a couple of years ago when he was a keynote speaker at the Laptop Institute, and I have a great deal of professional respect for him.  I agree with his observation regarding where to draw the line regarding cheating, plagiarism, and outsourcing.  Part of the problem, as I see it, is the purpose in the research assignment:

A few years ago I had given a research project to a college level class.  I warned them ahead of time of the consequences for plagiarism and had even spent a chunk of a class period defining plagiarism (from an ethical rather than just your run of the mill Webster’s dictionary version) as well as giving them examples of how I had caught individuals in the past who had attempted to plagiarize on the assignment.  My basic definition: Plagiarism is knowingly taking someone else’s written work, research, art, or ideas without giving the original author his or her credit.  Of course, those who were actually worried about it would ask: “What if I take it unknowingly”?

This is where the role of educator steps in.

Many times we just want to walk away and say “tough” or label them as a cheater.  But this, as with many other situations, opens a “teachable moment” where the teacher is able to show the student how to better research and discover the true purpose of a research assignment.  Now, if that purpose was simply to regurgitate information that has already been written in the past then the purpose of the assignment was to plagiarize (unless the assignment is nothing but quotes).  If the purpose of the assignment was to help to student come to some realization or conclusion about how they stood on an issue or how they interpreted a text, then the teacher has actually assigned something enlightening.

For me, as a teacher, the answer to where we draw the line (as David Warlick proposed) begins both with our understanding of plagiarism but also rethinking our notion of research assignments with our students.

As I continue to put together my notes for my presentation in July, I’ll probably post a bit more on this…

Links:
David Warlick’s 2 cents Worth Blog
Picture from Joe In DC’s Flickr photostream