Hey everyone,
Here are all the incredible ideas that were generated on Monday night. Thanks to everyone who contributed!! Please feel free to add more by commenting on this post
Session #1: Why is the Promise needed?
What is your impression of the Promise
o It is essential to take responsibility for our actions now
o A way of staying collectively socially responsible
o Makes us evaluate our own beliefs and begin to think about these issues therefore it benefits us as a people by giving us a broader perspective, and a purpose
o A concrete reminder of an engineer’s responsibility
o Get people in the right mindset, there’s more to life than money
o Declare our ideals
o Engineers must take a leading role
Why are we taking these actions?
o For the general well-being of our own and everyone else’s future generations.
o Makes us more conscious of waste in the final stages of our design
o Reminds us of what’s important
o Makes us think long term
o Helps protect our natural resources (animals, water, air quality)
o Adds value to the environment in the decision making process
o It’s an alternative while we experience a lack of policy governing such things (carbon tax)
Who will benefit from the implementation of such an oath?
o We have an obligation to those less fortunate
o needed for our children and all who come after them
What are your favourite/most powerful clauses?
o Article II
Name some places in the world you want your grandchildren to experience and places you believe are in danger of severe changes/destruction in the next 10years, 25 years, 50 years
How will future generations be affected by these types of changes?
Session #2: How can the values of the Promise be upheld in society?
What some examples of the abuse of rights of future generations?
o Disposable everything
o Unnecessary use of natural resources, fossil fuels
o Thinking in terms of initial capital vs. future impacts
How can we change current practices to reflect the values of the Promise?
o Make sustainable engineering mainstream
o Rethink the concept of waste
o Integrated design
What can you do personally to implement the Promise in your life at school, work and at home?
What challenges do you think you will come across implementing the principles of this Promise and how can you overcome them?
Session #3: How can we apply the Promise HERE and NOW?
What activities can we do at school as a group?
o Reach out to other disciplines (economics/policy)
o Create a website (WE NEED HELP WITH THIS!) have both intro and breadth for layman and depth for the technically proficient
o Influence facilities and services on campus
o Promote engineering environmental aspects to high school students
o The Promise can be used to promote the school/department in terms of admissions
o Educate student body in making responsible decisions
o Get professors on board
o Reach out to other student groups who have a similar vision, as a medium for publicity and ideas
o Reach out to other universities
What type of future events do you want to see?
o Projects for each year
o Show success stories – have industry speakers/case studies presented, include these on website (video or summary)
o Rick Mercer
o TED talks
o Promotion of the Promise with “Hot Yam” in the atrium
o Design competition in 1st and 4th year, make topics related to sustainability on campus
o Learning skills
o Fundraiser for non-profit
o Inter-university competitions
o Develop questions to ask OPG and government etc.
o Promote competition e.g. best poster design or best way to engage students, artistic
o End of oil party – exercise bikes to light, funeral for oil
How can we raise funds to ensure this is a sustainable initiative?
o Bake sales
o Money that we save the university (e.g. achieving a certain percentage of energy savings through our actions)
o Business case for sustainability
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Friday, November 6, 2009
Oath for MBAs
Hey Everyone,
Check out this article from the Economist describing a similar oath gathering momentum in the MBA world!
You may snigger. Yet with around half of this year’s graduating class taking the pledge, Max Anderson, an MBA student himself, saw it as a triumph for a campaign that he launched only last month. He had hoped to get 100 of his classmates to sign up at best. The economic crisis seems to have been behind the rush. Students want to distance themselves from earlier generations of MBAs, whose wonky moral compasses were seen to have contributed to the turmoil, especially on Wall Street, the biggest employer of Harvard MBAs in recent years.
The popularity of the oath might also reflect a broader change, with huge implications not just for business education but for management as a whole, says Rakesh Khurana, a professor at Harvard Business School. Mr Khurana and a colleague, Nitin Nohria, have been among the few faculty members to encourage Mr Anderson’s campaign. "Students are saying they want business education to operate in a different way and that they want higher expectations from faculty," he says. "Just telling them to maximise shareholder value does not satisfy them any more. They want to get away from the cartoon image of business that they are taught in the classroom, to get useful practical advice on how to lead a firm in the 21st century."
The student oath is part of a larger effort to turn management from a trade into a profession—a crusade that Messrs Khurana and Nohria proposed in a much-discussed article last October in the Harvard Business Review. When the business school was founded in 1908, the goal was to create something along the lines of Harvard’s medical and law schools. But the mission was soon abandoned, not least because there was no agreement about how managers should behave.
One of the two main criticisms of the oath and of the whole idea of turning management into a profession, particularly in business-school faculties, is that it is either unnecessary or actively harmful. Crimes such as embezzlement are punishable by law. Shareholders who feel that managers have not acted in their best interests can sue them. Meanwhile, by promising to "safeguard the interests" of colleagues, customers, and society, are the future captains of industry simply short-changing their shareholders?
Defenders of the oath reply that the goal of maximising shareholder value has become a justification for short-termism and, in particular, rapid personal enrichment. They are concerned about managers doing things that drive up the share price quickly at the expense of a firm’s lasting health. Management gurus such as Jim "Good to Great" Collins argue that shareholders are likely to earn better returns in the long run if firms are led by managers with integrity and a desire to play a constructive role in society.
The second complaint is that the oath’s fine words are toothless. There are few clear-cut injunctions along the lines of the Hippocratic oath for doctors, which commands physicians: "First, do no harm." It is hard to define, let alone measure, managing "in good faith" or acting "in an ethical manner". But the oath-taking MBAs’ pledges to avoid corruption, to represent the performance and risks of their firm accurately, to educate themselves continuously and to allow their peers to hold them to account are all meaningful and can be monitored, says Mr Khurana.
The campaign for an MBA oath dates back to 2004, when Ángel Cabrera, president of Thunderbird, a business school in Arizona, suggested that his students write one. It soon became an official part of the school’s MBA programme. The oath, Mr Cabrera says, has been "a phenomenal change-management tool". Students constantly use it to question things they are taught, he says, citing those who took a faculty member to task for breezily asserting that paying bribes is a normal part of doing business in India.
But it is what happens when the student enters the real world that counts. Mr Cabrera says he has anecdotal evidence of graduates who have challenged unethical behaviour successfully in their new jobs. He is also working with Messrs Khurana and Nohria, the Aspen Institute, a think-tank, and the World Economic Forum, among others, to try to work out a way to add teeth to the oath. They have discussed ideas such as trying to keep managers apprised of the latest thinking in their field, developing a professional licence for them and setting up an organisation to punish unprofessional behaviour.
Even these cheerleaders admit there are differences between practising management and, say, medicine. They concede that no self-regulating professional body for managers could possibly monopolise entry to the profession, given the long list of entrepreneurs such as Bill Gates who have created oodles of shareholder value without any formal training. Hardly any entrepreneurs have MBAs, Mr Khurana admits. But he believes a professional licence could still be a useful qualification even if it was not a requirement for all managers.
As for punishing unprofessional behaviour, Mr Khurana is inspired by the internet rather than by a closed council of grandees. From open-source software to eBay and Wikipedia, new systems of self-regulation are emerging based on openness, constant feedback and the wisdom of crowds. These could be adapted, he thinks, to provide effective scrutiny of managers.
Don Tapscott, co-author of "Wikinomics" and "The Naked Corporation", says that in today’s increasingly "transparent world, where every stakeholder has radar, accountability becomes a requirement for trust. In fact, for those who embrace it as a value, it is a powerful force for business success." In addition, the financial crisis and the recession will doubtless spark more scrutiny of managers. So embracing a more sympathetic agenda may not be so naïve after all.
Check out this article from the Economist describing a similar oath gathering momentum in the MBA world!
A Hippocratic oath for managers
Forswearing greed
Jun 4th 2009 BOSTON From The Economist print edition
MBA students lead a campaign to turn management into a formal profession
Forswearing greed
Jun 4th 2009 BOSTON From The Economist print edition
MBA students lead a campaign to turn management into a formal profession
THEY did not actually say that "greed is not good", but the oath taken on June 3rd by more than 400 students graduating from Harvard Business School amounted to much the same thing. At an unofficial ceremony the day before they received their MBAs, the students promised they would, among other things, "serve the greater good", "act with the utmost integrity" and guard against "decisions and behaviour that advance my own narrow ambitions, but harm the enterprise and the societies it serves."
You may snigger. Yet with around half of this year’s graduating class taking the pledge, Max Anderson, an MBA student himself, saw it as a triumph for a campaign that he launched only last month. He had hoped to get 100 of his classmates to sign up at best. The economic crisis seems to have been behind the rush. Students want to distance themselves from earlier generations of MBAs, whose wonky moral compasses were seen to have contributed to the turmoil, especially on Wall Street, the biggest employer of Harvard MBAs in recent years.
It may seem ridiculous that students who have spent over $100,000 on two years of study in an effort to get very rich are now so keen to rebrand themselves as virtuous. Such naivety, if that is what it is, will not survive long beyond the university’s walls. But the students may just be putting their marketing lessons into practice. They are entering the worst job market for graduating MBAs in decades. Many see non-profit and government jobs as their best bet. So embracing the "values agenda" could prove useful.
The popularity of the oath might also reflect a broader change, with huge implications not just for business education but for management as a whole, says Rakesh Khurana, a professor at Harvard Business School. Mr Khurana and a colleague, Nitin Nohria, have been among the few faculty members to encourage Mr Anderson’s campaign. "Students are saying they want business education to operate in a different way and that they want higher expectations from faculty," he says. "Just telling them to maximise shareholder value does not satisfy them any more. They want to get away from the cartoon image of business that they are taught in the classroom, to get useful practical advice on how to lead a firm in the 21st century."
The student oath is part of a larger effort to turn management from a trade into a profession—a crusade that Messrs Khurana and Nohria proposed in a much-discussed article last October in the Harvard Business Review. When the business school was founded in 1908, the goal was to create something along the lines of Harvard’s medical and law schools. But the mission was soon abandoned, not least because there was no agreement about how managers should behave.
A set of shared values is one of the defining features of a profession. Lawyers and doctors have their own codes, but business-school professors tend to embrace Milton Friedman’s claim that the only responsibility of business is to maximise profits. They have told their students that as managers their sole mission should be increasing shareholder value.
One of the two main criticisms of the oath and of the whole idea of turning management into a profession, particularly in business-school faculties, is that it is either unnecessary or actively harmful. Crimes such as embezzlement are punishable by law. Shareholders who feel that managers have not acted in their best interests can sue them. Meanwhile, by promising to "safeguard the interests" of colleagues, customers, and society, are the future captains of industry simply short-changing their shareholders?
Defenders of the oath reply that the goal of maximising shareholder value has become a justification for short-termism and, in particular, rapid personal enrichment. They are concerned about managers doing things that drive up the share price quickly at the expense of a firm’s lasting health. Management gurus such as Jim "Good to Great" Collins argue that shareholders are likely to earn better returns in the long run if firms are led by managers with integrity and a desire to play a constructive role in society.
The second complaint is that the oath’s fine words are toothless. There are few clear-cut injunctions along the lines of the Hippocratic oath for doctors, which commands physicians: "First, do no harm." It is hard to define, let alone measure, managing "in good faith" or acting "in an ethical manner". But the oath-taking MBAs’ pledges to avoid corruption, to represent the performance and risks of their firm accurately, to educate themselves continuously and to allow their peers to hold them to account are all meaningful and can be monitored, says Mr Khurana.
The campaign for an MBA oath dates back to 2004, when Ángel Cabrera, president of Thunderbird, a business school in Arizona, suggested that his students write one. It soon became an official part of the school’s MBA programme. The oath, Mr Cabrera says, has been "a phenomenal change-management tool". Students constantly use it to question things they are taught, he says, citing those who took a faculty member to task for breezily asserting that paying bribes is a normal part of doing business in India.
But it is what happens when the student enters the real world that counts. Mr Cabrera says he has anecdotal evidence of graduates who have challenged unethical behaviour successfully in their new jobs. He is also working with Messrs Khurana and Nohria, the Aspen Institute, a think-tank, and the World Economic Forum, among others, to try to work out a way to add teeth to the oath. They have discussed ideas such as trying to keep managers apprised of the latest thinking in their field, developing a professional licence for them and setting up an organisation to punish unprofessional behaviour.
Even these cheerleaders admit there are differences between practising management and, say, medicine. They concede that no self-regulating professional body for managers could possibly monopolise entry to the profession, given the long list of entrepreneurs such as Bill Gates who have created oodles of shareholder value without any formal training. Hardly any entrepreneurs have MBAs, Mr Khurana admits. But he believes a professional licence could still be a useful qualification even if it was not a requirement for all managers.
As for punishing unprofessional behaviour, Mr Khurana is inspired by the internet rather than by a closed council of grandees. From open-source software to eBay and Wikipedia, new systems of self-regulation are emerging based on openness, constant feedback and the wisdom of crowds. These could be adapted, he thinks, to provide effective scrutiny of managers.
Don Tapscott, co-author of "Wikinomics" and "The Naked Corporation", says that in today’s increasingly "transparent world, where every stakeholder has radar, accountability becomes a requirement for trust. In fact, for those who embrace it as a value, it is a powerful force for business success." In addition, the financial crisis and the recession will doubtless spark more scrutiny of managers. So embracing a more sympathetic agenda may not be so naïve after all.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Localicious
You've probably heard of summerlicious and winterlicious here in Toronto, but Localicious is on right NOW!!
Enjoy local and sustainable food dishes at restaurants around Toronto and do your part to create global change for generations to come. Partial proceeds from every Localicious dish served will be generously donated to WWF-Canada's conservation work.
http://community.wwf.ca/localicious/Restaurants.cfm?loc=Toronto&start=1
Bon Appetite!
Enjoy local and sustainable food dishes at restaurants around Toronto and do your part to create global change for generations to come. Partial proceeds from every Localicious dish served will be generously donated to WWF-Canada's conservation work.
http://community.wwf.ca/localicious/Restaurants.cfm?loc=Toronto&start=1
Bon Appetite!
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Hello everyone,
I thought I would get the "posting" going by showing you a very interesting quote Prof. Pressnail sent me a while ago. Feel free to post any comments about it!!
We have tens of thousands of abandoned homes without people and tens of thousands of abandoned people without homes. We have failed bankers advising failed regulators on how to save failed assets. Think about this: we are the only species on this planet without full employment. Brilliant. We have an economy that tells us that it is cheaper to destroy earth in real time than to renew, restore, and sustain it. You can print money to bail out a bank but you can't print life to bail out a planet. At present we are stealing the future, selling it in the present,
and calling it gross domestic product. We can just as easily have an economy that is based on healing the future instead of stealing it. We can either create assets for the future or take the assets of the future. One is called restoration and the other exploitation. And whenever we exploit the earth we exploit people and cause untold suffering.
Working for the earth is not a way to get rich; it is a way to be rich.
-Paul Hawken, Commencement Address,
University of Portland, 3 May 2009
I thought I would get the "posting" going by showing you a very interesting quote Prof. Pressnail sent me a while ago. Feel free to post any comments about it!!
We have tens of thousands of abandoned homes without people and tens of thousands of abandoned people without homes. We have failed bankers advising failed regulators on how to save failed assets. Think about this: we are the only species on this planet without full employment. Brilliant. We have an economy that tells us that it is cheaper to destroy earth in real time than to renew, restore, and sustain it. You can print money to bail out a bank but you can't print life to bail out a planet. At present we are stealing the future, selling it in the present,
and calling it gross domestic product. We can just as easily have an economy that is based on healing the future instead of stealing it. We can either create assets for the future or take the assets of the future. One is called restoration and the other exploitation. And whenever we exploit the earth we exploit people and cause untold suffering.
Working for the earth is not a way to get rich; it is a way to be rich.
-Paul Hawken, Commencement Address,
University of Portland, 3 May 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
Welcome to the Promise to Future Generations Website!
Now that you have signed the Promise we want to establish a community, accessible to everyone, where we can discuss the important issues that the Promise commitment raises.
First, for those of you who were unable to attend the signing ceremony on June 19, 2009, please visit GB105 to pick up your framed Promise and sign the Register.
We would also like to take this opportunity to invite you to join the blog. We hope that this will become a forum for discussion where people can voice their opinions, ideas, seek advice, post interesting articles, pictures or videos that may be of interest to the group. As the Promise raises a number of issues, we see this website hosting a wide array of topics. If you find something interesting, chances are your Promise peers will find it interesting too, so post away!!
Ek and Marianne
First, for those of you who were unable to attend the signing ceremony on June 19, 2009, please visit GB105 to pick up your framed Promise and sign the Register.
We would also like to take this opportunity to invite you to join the blog. We hope that this will become a forum for discussion where people can voice their opinions, ideas, seek advice, post interesting articles, pictures or videos that may be of interest to the group. As the Promise raises a number of issues, we see this website hosting a wide array of topics. If you find something interesting, chances are your Promise peers will find it interesting too, so post away!!
Ek and Marianne
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
The Five Articles
Article I
Each generation has the right to inherit a healthy Earth where they can develop their culture and social bonds as a member of one intergenerational family, and each generation has a corresponding responsibility to accord a similar right to future generations.
Article II
All generations, sharing in the estate and heritage of the Earth, have a duty as trustees for future generations to use resources with forethought and responsibility, to honour life on Earth, and to protect human freedom.
Article III
In fulfilling the duty owed to future generations, it is the paramount responsibility of each generation to be prudent and constantly vigilant to ensure that humankind’s harm to life on Earth, including biodiversity and the balance of nature, is minimized.
Article IV
All appropriate measures shall be taken to ensure that the rights of future generations are protected and not sacrificed for the expedience and convenience of the present generation.
Article V
The rights of future generations have a claim on the conscience of all peoples. To foster a culture that promotes respect for individuals, society, and the environment, every person is challenged to imaginatively implement these principles as if in the very presence of those future generations whose rights we seek to perpetuate.
The Organizing Committee
Student Members
Steve Dennis BASc CIV9T9 + PEY MSF
Agnes Durlik BASc CHE0T5 + PEY; MEng
Lesley-Ann Foulds CIV1T0 EWB
Mike Klassen ESC1T0 EWB
Marianne Touchie CIV0T9
Ekaterina Tzekova CIV0T9
Additional Contributors:
Erika Bailey BA, MA candidate (OISE/UT)
Ashley Taylor BASc ESC0T5 + PEY; MEng
Faculty Advisors
Gabe D’Eleuterio (EngSci)
Kim Pressnail (Civil)
Lisa Romkey (EngSci), PhD candidate (OISE/UT)
Steve Dennis BASc CIV9T9 + PEY MSF
Agnes Durlik BASc CHE0T5 + PEY; MEng
Lesley-Ann Foulds CIV1T0 EWB
Mike Klassen ESC1T0 EWB
Marianne Touchie CIV0T9
Ekaterina Tzekova CIV0T9
Additional Contributors:
Erika Bailey BA, MA candidate (OISE/UT)
Ashley Taylor BASc ESC0T5 + PEY; MEng
Faculty Advisors
Gabe D’Eleuterio (EngSci)
Kim Pressnail (Civil)
Lisa Romkey (EngSci), PhD candidate (OISE/UT)
Just Imagine...
Imagine a world where engineers were honour-bound to respect the rights of future generations. Just imagine… Today, we face some amazing challenges. Worldwide problems of global warming, climate change, and the diminishing supplies of inexpensive carbon-based energy threaten our biosphere and our industrialized economies. These problems not only threaten our ability, but the ability of future generations to meet their needs, to fulfill their dreams, and to determine their destinies.
Solving these global problems means that we need to work together to make more sustainable decisions, and we need to begin making them now. Although change is occurring, according to William D. Ruckelshaus, former head of the US Environmental Protection Agency, bringing about the necessary paradigm shift toward more sustainable behaviour will be a momentous task. He believes that:
“Moving nations and people in the direction of sustainability would be a modification of society comparable in scale to only two other changes: the Agricultural Revolution of the late Neolithic and the Industrial Revolution of the past two centuries. Those revolutions were gradual, spontaneous, and largely unconscious. This one will have to be a fully conscious operation, guided by the best foresight that science can provide. If we actually do it, the undertaking will be absolutely unique to humanity’s stay on earth.”
As awareness grows, the case for change becomes more compelling. The enlightened no longer debate whether change is necessary, but ask how scientists and engineers should respond so that orderly and prudent change is brought about.
Education is frequently cited as a key component in leading the transformation to a more sustainable society.
Engineering education could lead us from what we call the ‘Age of Selfishness’, into the ‘Age of Responsibility’. Here in the Civil Engineering and Mineral Engineering programs, change is occurring. The undergraduate programs are undergoing change and steps are being taken to introduce longer-term, more sustainable thinking into the curricula.
As these changes are occurring, students are asking, “Is there something that we can do to help bring about the necessary change in thinking?” When issues of sustainability are discussed among students, it is apparent that many students already recognize the need for change, and the need to become more sustainable in our decision-making. To many students, this isn’t ‘news’ or a paradigm shift in thinking. It is a natural course forward that begins with considering the environment and the needs of future generations in addition to the needs of the present generation. Ultimately, students see the need to protect future generations, in part, because they see themselves as a future generation.
So how can students protect the needs of the people of the future? Beyond a weak ethical duty, there is no duty in law requiring anyone, including engineers, to protect the interests of future generations. In fact, creating such a legal duty has yet to occur. Back in the 1970’s Jacque Cousteau saw the need for such a law and created a “Bill of Rights for Future Generations”. Through the auspices of the Cousteau Society, a declaration of these rights by the United Nations was sought in 1992. Although the work of his Society was not accepted, the need for such a Bill of Rights still exists.
That leads us to today. A group of students and staff, including the authors of this article, have been working on a project known affectionately as “The Cousteau Initiative”. Cousteau’s ‘Bill of Rights’ has been adapted and has inspired the creation of “A Promise to Future Generations”. It has been set out here in draft form.
The plan is to make the promise voluntary - an active choice made by students who believe they have a duty to protect the rights of future generations to enjoy this bountiful earth. Students will be exposed to the Promise throughout their undergraduate career with workshops in fourth year used to explore what it means to them.
By recreating some of the discussions and debates held by the writers and the other committee members, students will be able to consider the meaning of each clause and article and to determine how the Promise relates to their lives.
At the end of fourth year, those students who choose to commit to this promise will participate in a ceremony that the steering committee hopes may eventually become part of convocation. At the ceremony, students will stand up in front of their friends and family and declare the promise with their like-minded peers and future colleagues. By committing to the Promise together, students will see that they are not alone and find strength in the combined efforts of their peers who share their sense of duty.
Well, that is the plan. For now, we have a draft “Promise”. Can you imagine a world where all engineers stepped forward and agreed to be bound by such a promise? Just imagine…
Solving these global problems means that we need to work together to make more sustainable decisions, and we need to begin making them now. Although change is occurring, according to William D. Ruckelshaus, former head of the US Environmental Protection Agency, bringing about the necessary paradigm shift toward more sustainable behaviour will be a momentous task. He believes that:
“Moving nations and people in the direction of sustainability would be a modification of society comparable in scale to only two other changes: the Agricultural Revolution of the late Neolithic and the Industrial Revolution of the past two centuries. Those revolutions were gradual, spontaneous, and largely unconscious. This one will have to be a fully conscious operation, guided by the best foresight that science can provide. If we actually do it, the undertaking will be absolutely unique to humanity’s stay on earth.”
As awareness grows, the case for change becomes more compelling. The enlightened no longer debate whether change is necessary, but ask how scientists and engineers should respond so that orderly and prudent change is brought about.
Education is frequently cited as a key component in leading the transformation to a more sustainable society.
Engineering education could lead us from what we call the ‘Age of Selfishness’, into the ‘Age of Responsibility’. Here in the Civil Engineering and Mineral Engineering programs, change is occurring. The undergraduate programs are undergoing change and steps are being taken to introduce longer-term, more sustainable thinking into the curricula.
As these changes are occurring, students are asking, “Is there something that we can do to help bring about the necessary change in thinking?” When issues of sustainability are discussed among students, it is apparent that many students already recognize the need for change, and the need to become more sustainable in our decision-making. To many students, this isn’t ‘news’ or a paradigm shift in thinking. It is a natural course forward that begins with considering the environment and the needs of future generations in addition to the needs of the present generation. Ultimately, students see the need to protect future generations, in part, because they see themselves as a future generation.
So how can students protect the needs of the people of the future? Beyond a weak ethical duty, there is no duty in law requiring anyone, including engineers, to protect the interests of future generations. In fact, creating such a legal duty has yet to occur. Back in the 1970’s Jacque Cousteau saw the need for such a law and created a “Bill of Rights for Future Generations”. Through the auspices of the Cousteau Society, a declaration of these rights by the United Nations was sought in 1992. Although the work of his Society was not accepted, the need for such a Bill of Rights still exists.
That leads us to today. A group of students and staff, including the authors of this article, have been working on a project known affectionately as “The Cousteau Initiative”. Cousteau’s ‘Bill of Rights’ has been adapted and has inspired the creation of “A Promise to Future Generations”. It has been set out here in draft form.
The plan is to make the promise voluntary - an active choice made by students who believe they have a duty to protect the rights of future generations to enjoy this bountiful earth. Students will be exposed to the Promise throughout their undergraduate career with workshops in fourth year used to explore what it means to them.
By recreating some of the discussions and debates held by the writers and the other committee members, students will be able to consider the meaning of each clause and article and to determine how the Promise relates to their lives.
At the end of fourth year, those students who choose to commit to this promise will participate in a ceremony that the steering committee hopes may eventually become part of convocation. At the ceremony, students will stand up in front of their friends and family and declare the promise with their like-minded peers and future colleagues. By committing to the Promise together, students will see that they are not alone and find strength in the combined efforts of their peers who share their sense of duty.
Well, that is the plan. For now, we have a draft “Promise”. Can you imagine a world where all engineers stepped forward and agreed to be bound by such a promise? Just imagine…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
