California Colleges: Leading The Way Or Falling Behind?

In a time when people are becoming more aware of environmental issues, it is no surprise to see college universities hitching their horses to the green bandwagon. The state of California has been a definitive front runner in this movement and has seen a myriad of environmental changes in the past few years. With so many different entities making the move toward greener practices, both government and private businesses alike, one would think that the leading educational institutions of our state would be quick to follow suit, if not be the ones leading the way. In reality, many of our most established universities have failed to show a strong commitment to sustainability, including my very own University of Southern California.

In a recent issue of the Daily Trojan, an article discussing USC's new sustainability committee made front page news. The Sustainability Steering Committee differs from the previous Operations Sustainability Committee in that it directly involves administrators of the school who have the actual authority to enact the changes prescribed by the committee. One cannot argue that this is indeed promising news, but it should not simply be taken at face value. Further analysis of why and what things are changing should be taken into consideration.

The Sustainable Endowments Institute, created in 2005, issues a report card every year of 200 leading educational institutions both in the United States and Canada based on their environmental and endowment practices. The 2008 report showed USC's grade to be at a C+, a significant improvement from its D grade in the previous year. The weakest area was the Endowment Transparency category, which should come as no surprise considering that USC is a private university that keeps most of its financial ongoings extremely private. Failure to make available details of their funds toward sustainability initiatives resulted in an F grading. However, USC scored highest in the Transportation category, receiving an A for their full-time rideshare program and use of electric and hybrid vehicles by the facilities department.

Improvement or no improvement, it is in my opinion that a university with the funds and resources of USC should not be receiving anything lower than a B grading. Issues of the environment have been a growing concern since the start of the new millennium and it seems that USC has been slow on the uptake to make any serious changes to their sustainability practices. In fact, I question whether any real significant changes would have occurred if it were not for the 2008 College Sustainability Report Card or the recent changes made by Stanford University.

A recent article by the Center For American Progress details the numerous green programs that Stanford already has in place. Much of Stanford's environmentally friendly practices are being led by The Initiative On The Environment and Sustainability which combines the expertise of researchers and scholars as well as leaders in the field to not only create a more sustainable campus, but a more sustainable world.

Not surprisingly, Stanford was named one of the 25 Campus Sustainability Leaders and received a B+ grade in the 2008 Sustainability Report Card, slightly lower from the A- they received in 2007. (sketch of Stanford's plan for a green dorm to the right)

So the question begins to emerge, are these recent changes in USC a genuine effort to make the campus more sustainable or a result of their attempt to become more like their competitors? As a school that touts itself as an institution equal to any ivy league school, most notably Stanford, it leads me to suspect that USC strives to become more green in an attempt to match their rivals. Change has to be about more then just a PR stunt to improve ones reputation in the eyes of the public. The college recruitment arena is a highly competitive realm that continues to get tougher with each passing year. Although many colleges and universities before Stanford have been employing green tactics, Stanford seems unabashed to let the world know just how green they've become. Is it the case that USC, too, would like to use their recent push toward environmentalism to garner more attention and possibly draw more students to the school?

Some may think that as long as changes are being made for the better, it should be of no consequence why they are being made to begin with. But I must argue that motives do indeed play a crucial role. They determine whether these new sustainable practices will actually be pursued and continued or remain nothing more then optimistic plans. Environmentalism is a hot topic now, but the public has a short memory. Would these changes persist if issues of the environment began to fade into the background as they have in the past? I have my doubts.

I do not doubt that there are many involved in the new Sustainability Steering Committee at USC who have great intentions to make the school a model of energy efficiency. What I question is the commitment of the administration to keep this school a sustainable entity. If it is the case that the school is simply following the green trend and making only half hearted attempts at real, substantive changes, then the future for an environmental campus seems short lived. If however, the administration sees the true benefits sustainable design has for the surrounding area as well as the school and continues to strive toward these goals despite the direction others around them may choose to go, then the potential for a green future seems limitless.