Environmental and Social Audit

By Leah Robshaw and Daniel Hunter

Independent Study

Spring 1999

Analysis

Contacts and Process Notes

Appendices

The food catering business is very consumer driven. The customer, in this case Earlham College and specifically its students, are always given the opportunity to make comments through comment cards and e-mail. Additionally, food committee dinners are set-up to elicit further critcisms and suggestions. Kathie notes that she almost consistently listens to the suggestion cards that she receives.

Even still, some food ends up not being eaten within a few days. Due to strict regulations, after a certain number of days (depending on the type) food is thrown out. In the past, legal restrictions prohibited this food from being easily donated to local shelters. However, the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, passed in 1996, allows businesses to easily donate food which is not "marketable" because of appearance, age, grade or other factors. Therefore, we have designed and laid the groundwork for a program to be implemented that would transport food from our food service and other mass producers of food in the area to shelters in the area.

Our program, which we view as an on-going project, is to set-up a system in which student volunteers who are trained in proper food handling will distribute extra food from Earlham’s food service, Sodexho-Marriott, and other large food services (such as Reid Hospital and MCL Cafeteria) to area organizations which offer free meals to people in the area (such as Circle U). Donated food will go to a number of organizations and churches. This program will start in the school year of 1999-2000 with the help of Students to End Poverty (S.T.E.P.) and strong support from Kathie Guyler. (For more information see Appendix A.)

An environmental program currently in place by Sodexho-Mariott is the "To Go" containers — containers made for taking out food from Saga. For many years, Sodexho-Mariott purchased styrofoam "To Go" containers, allowing students "on-the-go" to eat a meal out of Saga. Due to strong influence by the Earlham Environmental Action Committee (EEAC), these styrofoam containers have been replaced with reusable plastic containers as of the 1998-99 school year. The system is set-up such that each student receives a free sturdy, plastic container (originally purchased by Earlham College). Students then come with a used container and exchange it for another, clean container. The dirty containers are washed, as per health regulations, and used again. Currently paper cups are still used for beverages and soup (though students can use their own cups under 32 oz. in size).

Upon original implementation of this program, food costs began to increase. As critics (mostly from other food services around the country) of the program suspected, students would come in, eat food and then take out extra food using their container — essentially eating twice for one meal. Costs during the first couple of months of the project, perhaps partially by coincidence, increased approximately $900 per week to a maximum of $1,300 per week. With the help of student government and concerned individuals the costs returned to anticipated per week cycles.

In the spring of 1998 the Earlham Environmental Action Coalition expressed concern regarding the purchasing of Econosource paper made from virgin trees for Earlham College copy machines and computers. Around the same time an informal paper purchasing committee, consisting of Donna Sykes and Alice Lafuze, had formed to research post-consumer content recycled paper options.

Earlham College is relatively small in size, and can only stock one brand of office paper, so switching to an alternative fiber or post-consumer waste fiber paper product is an all or nothing proposition. Thus it requires a level of serious research prior to switching to a new brand. The main criteria the paper purchasing committee has created to help determine whether or not an alternative fiber or of post-consumer waste recycled paper is suitable for Earlham are: level of paper dust, re-copying quality, jamming frequency, and cost.

Over the summer of 1998 the paper purchasing committee tested Geocycle high performance office paper with 20% post-consumer fiber (84 brightness) produced by Georgia Pacific. It did not meet their criteria due to its increased tendency to jam. This upcoming summer of 1999 Campus Services will again be testing a recycled paper made by Aspen that contains 40% post-consumer waste recycled paper.

The effort made by the paper purchasing committee and Campus Services to make a shift towards office paper with a portion of post-consumer fiber content is a step in the right direction. As paper technology improves, the selection of alternative fiber and 100% post-consumer waste paper products will also improve in quality and variety.

A recent study conducted by the Government Printing Office and three manufacturers of office equipment has shown that copier paper with 30 percent post-consumer content performs just as well as virgin paper and paper with lower recycled content. The study was coordinated by Recycling at Work, a program of the US Conference of Mayors.(Daily Environment Report, March 18, 1999, ppA-7-8).

The Government Printing Office has awarded contracts for 30% post-consumer content copier paper. GPO also tested and qualified a number of 30% post-consumer content copier papers (http://www.ofee.gov/html/gsa.htm) (Appendix B). In addition to 30% post-consumer content recycled paper on the market, many of these paper manufacturers are developing 100% post-consumer content recycled paper (Appendix C).

There is also a wide variety of alternative fiber office paper options on the market. Tree-free paper is at the cutting edge of paper technology (Appendix D). Unfortunately many of these brands are more expensive than post-consumer content recycled paper at the moment. They are, however, an eye opener in many regards. They break the notion that quality paper inherently comes from trees. Additionally, as forests increase in their economic value alternative papers, such as those made from the cereal straw left over after grain crops are harvested, may become the most cost-efficient (and ecologically sound) paper option.

Elisa Weisenbaulm, an Earlham alumnae, helped convince Earlham to become a member of the Green Lights program in 1997. Since then, Earlham maintenance has used any funds leftover from each semester towards improving the efficiency of the lighting in dormitories, classrooms and outside lights. Because staff is busy during the year and classes are occupied, most of the work for the Green Lights program is done during the summer.

Such environmental initiatives have been undertaken in the past without the guise of the Green Lights program. However, with the Green Lights program Earlham gets recognition and keeps records of its implementations (see appendix). Because of this, information on Earlham’s energy programs have only been recorded since 1997.

Since 1997, Earlham has, through three major lighting initiatives, prevented the emission of

and saved over 197,257 kW hours of electricity simply through installing energy efficient lighting.

(Source: Energy Star Green Lights Reports, see Appendix)

The new social science building had an addendum in its proposal to architects which required following the specifications of the Energy Star/Green Lights program. The main thrust of the Energy Efficiency addendum required the architects to document all energy saving initiatives that are undertaken, including extra cost versus their economic benefits because of less energy use. This addendum will make sure that the new social science building integrates energy efficient technology.

Individual departments are responsible for deciding which courses are taught by whom and when. They send a finalized course schedule to the Registrar’s office where it is reviewed and compiled. One key reason listed courses are not regularily offered is due to the small number of faculty at Earlham. Often specific professors create and teach a class, so when they go on sabbatical, or retire, the new professors can not always teach their courses (although they may bring knowledge and expertise that allows them to teach new courses). Additionally professors may be assigned a number of other course responsibilities and so they are unable to teach the more specialized classes.

In order to avoid running the risk of falsely advertising Earlham’s course offerings to prospective students and the current student population at Earlham, departments should be more clear in stating how often a course is taught (every semester, annually, two out of every three years, bi-annually, once every three or four years...). Departments should also keep track of the courses that they are and are not able to offer and remove courses listed in the guidebook when appropriate.

Students themselves can also assist in making sure courses that they are required to take, or are interested in taking are offered during their time at Earlham. Departments can be petitioned by students to offer courses through writing a letter to the department head (this letter should also be sent to the registrar to alert her/him to the process). Bonita Washington-Lacey, the registrar of Earlham College, can also be alerted to inconsistencies in critical course offerings by making note of such classes on your major declaration proposal form.

The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act took effect September 30, 1997. Under a provision stated by this new law, consumers can call just one of the following three major national credit bureaus (they share the lists) to have their names removed from mailing lists used for unsolicited credit and insurance offers. Almost all the companies offering pre-approved credit cards use lists from these three major credit bureaus (Appendix D).

The Direct Marketing Association represents many mail order sales companies, and estimates that listing your name with their mail preference service will stop 75% of all national mailings coming to your home. Call or write and ask to be added to their suppression list (Appendix E). To remove you name from companies that do not participate in the D.M.A. program they must be contacted directly. (Contacting individual companies is also the path to choose if you only want some of your junk mail stopped.) Students can write to firms that send unsolicited material and tell them firmly to stop by using the Business Reply envelopes often included in unwanted mail offers, and addressing it to Customer Service. Students can also call the firms' toll free numbers and ask to speak with customer service.

At the beginning of the school year a table could be set up providing students with information on stopping junk mail and an opportunity to remove their names from junk mail lists. (For a listing of further websites that provide information on how to stop junk mail see Appendix G).

Convocation sheets and other similar reminders are stuffed in Earlham student’s boxes because, at the moment, it is the only method of ensuring that every student receives some sort of advertising for such events, thus the idea of giving students the option to not receive convocation slips (and alternativelty using a large, centrally located bulletin board for posting such events) is not a possibility. Other forms of advertising such as the Earlham Web Calendar, large and visible posters, Saga signs, and Dateline do not have a guaranteed audience comprised of 100% of the student body.

Based on observation, the majority of Earlham students do not closely read these convo sheets and immediately toss them into the recycling bin located next to the mailboxes. The result is a lot of wasted resources such as: paper, water, money spent by the college for the paper and copying, and time spent by the post-office workstudy student who stuffed the boxes. Fortunately, alternative forms of individually reaching every student on campus are currently being developed. Earlham Information Services is working on creating an all-student e-mail list that could be used for this purpose. Phasing out the use of paper event announcement fliers is s step in the right direction towards making Earlham a more environmentally sustainable campus.

Current practice for herbicides application entails an annual spraying with herbicides during spring break (in order to minimize contact with agents). To help keep moles away, insecticides are applied on the athletic fields to kill grubs that attract moles. The athletic fields are also treated as deemed necessary on a case-by-case basis. The reasoning behind the herbicides application is that prospectives are attracted to "good-looking" lawns — which do not contain dandelions all over.

The cost for the non-athletic fields is $9,000 per year. The estimated annual cost for athletic field varies around $12,000. Earlham’s applicator is Tru Care Chem Lawn. A summary of the chemicals used by Tru Care Chem Lawn can be found in the appendix.

Corrugated cardboard is also picked up for recycling by Rumpke (free of charge) at the food service loading dock behind Runyan Center. The Green House (an environmental Living/Learning house) began collecting cardboard from houses every Saturday morning in the Spring of 1999. The maintenance department also recycles mixed metals and batteries.

At the moment, the college’s paper recycling system is in a developmental stage. In 1995 the previous paper recycling system (which included colored and white paper) used at Earlham collapsed when Rumpke, the business who supplied Earlham with paper recycling services, dropped their paper recycling program. During the fall of 1997 EEAC worked closely with Bill Mullin, the director of Earlham's physical plant, as well as with the maintenance department to re-establish a white paper recycling service on campus to be provided by the Richmond Recycling Center. EEAC worked one-on-one with Earlham departments and offices and alongside the student recyclers and Earlham housekeepers to develop and install an convenient and sustainable system of paper use on campus.

Re-using paper that has printing on one side is the easiest and most cost-effective way to reduce paper consumption at Earlham. EEAC has encouraged offices and faculty to re-use paper whenever possible, to make two-sided copies for classroom handouts, and to accept final papers printed on re-used paper. Boxes are now located near the mail boxes in Runyan Center for the collection of convocations fliers to be re-used as scratch paper in offices. EEAC also produces and distributes notebooks made of re-used paper.

Following the example set by Wildman Library, EEAC has placed boxes filled with re-usable paper near the Lilly Library and Dennis Hall computer printers. The student photocopy machines in the Lilly Library and Runyan Center are also supplied with used-on-one-side sheets of paper. By re-using paper for rough drafts, Internet print-outs and the like, students can reduce the amount of money Earlham spends on paper while saving trees in the process.

Paper recycling is the second step in creating a sustainable paper use system at Earlham. Starting in the Spring of 1998, EEAC and the Earlham student recyclers, with crucial assistance and support from the housekeeping staff, revived white paper recycling at Earlham in the spring of 1998. White paper includes computer paper, notebook paper, pre-recycled paper. This does not include envelopes with glassine windows, manila bond (cream) paper, newspapers, glossy paper, colored paper or card-stock paper.

Since Earlham accepts students on the basis of academic and personal merit alone the next factor that will determine if a low-income student can actually attend Earlham is whether or not they and their family can afford to pay the tuition. The true definition of need-blind admissions, according to many, includes having the college do whatever is necessary to meet a student’s financial need. The definition of financial need, however, is somewhat slippery. It is hard to place an objective figure on how much money a student can afford to pay to attend Earlham, since perceptions of affordability differ between economic classes as well as individual families.

At Earlham, financial aid awards (made after a student is accepted for admission) are based on a combination of the federal methodology for determining a student’s need, and Earlham’s institutional methodology for determining need-based grants. The first step in this process is the completion of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) by a student and their family. This information is reported to the federal processor. Earlham receives the information documented in a student’s FAFSA by way of a Student Aid Report (SAR). The SAR includes a statement determining the "expected family contribution" (EFC) for a student. The EFC is the amount of tuition Earlham can technically expect a student to be able to pay.

The difference between a student’s EFC and cost to attend Earlham is defined as a family’s financial need. A student must re-apply for need-based aid each year. Students admitted to Earlham who are awarded financial aid will continue to be awarded the aid for which they qualify each year, according to the policy in effect the year the student was admitted to Earlham. As long as a student’s financial situation remains the same and satisfactory academic progress towards a degree is maintained, his or her aid eligibility should remain about the same all four years. The four main variables that directly affect a student’s eligibility are: number of family members, number of family members in college, income and assets. Based on this information Earlham creates a student’s financial aid package.

In 1996-1997, 68% of the Earlham student body received some sort of financial aid. And Earlham does an overall good job of meeting the financial need of its students, as defined by a student’s SAR. Earlham awards more than $5 million dollars of need-based grant aid each year. Earlham awards three types of financial assistance to students:

Cost is still identified as a main reason accepted students of students of color and low- income students do not come to Earlham, even when Earlham has met the entirety of a student’s financial need as defined by their SAR. This is due, in part, to the differing definitions of need that the SAR might envision versus what an admitted student’s family can afford. Likewise, the college may meet 100% of a student’s need, in part through loans, which an admitted student may not be able, or willing, to take on if other less expensive higher education options are available.

The second rule Earlham has set-up is that if students lose government’s student loans because they did not register for the draft or selective service, Earlham will make up that amount with its own financial aid package (in addition to whatever financial aid you might have had coming).

Contacts and Process Notes

1. Research usefulness and possibility (talked to Kathie);
2. Contact area food services;
3. Find funding sources: talk to STEP Convener, EVE Office (for mini-grant information and ICC grant) [ext. 1519]
4. Find people power.

To get the new social science building to be Energy Star/Green Lights complaint the following strategy was used:

1. Talked with Joe Ventresca [935-4549] and gained a copy of an energy efficiency addendum;
2. Distributed copies of that addendum to Dick Smith and others in the committee overseeing the building;
3. Had follow-up conversations with several members of the committee.

1. Gained nearly 200 signatures of faculty, staff and students explaining a desire to understand why herbicides were being used on the grass;
2. Distributed petition to Doug Bennett [ext. 1211], Dick Smith and Bill Mullin (with follow-up conversations);
3. Gave deadline for information to be given — waited and then gave information.

Paper recycling was implemented in Spring 1998 by EEAC

1. Surveys looking for input on a potential paper recycling program were sent to department heads and followed up with a dialog when possible
2. Worked with the student recyclers

Steps for research, included:

1. defined need-blind;
2. read Earlham College’s Financial Planning Guide;
3. spoke with Admissions Office;
4. talked informally with various Earlham professors and to find out their opinion on EC’s need blind policy;
5. Dipti wrote an article for the Word.

1. Talked to Tony Bing and gained understanding of the reasons and specific measures taken;
2. Followed-up admissions guidelines with Jeff Rickey;
3. Tried to find when and where specific decisions were instituted in the archives with the help of Tom Hamm (could not be readily found).

Appendix A:

- by Daniel Hunter and Leah Robshaw

Since 1985, the number of hungry people in the United States has increased by 50 percent. Over 30 million Americans suffer from hunger — one of every nine citizens. Twenty million Americans use the services of food pantries and soup kitchens in a given month; nearly 50 percent of these people are under the age of eighteen.

Yet while many are going hungry, food is being wasted. In the United States, approximately 20% of all food produced is wasted between the fields and the table. At Earlham College a substantial amount of food is thrown out every week by our food service Sodexho-Marriott for such reasons as appearance or age.

In the past, food services were reluctant to donate food due to the threat liabilities. In late 1996, Clinton passed the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Action which kept food donors from criminal liability caused by the "nature, age, packaging or condition of apparently wholesome food..." Because of this bill, managers are now able to be more easily donate to local food shelters.

Kathie Guyler, the manager of Food Services at Earlham College, has offered to donate all leftovers to food shelters in the area. We are also in the process of contacting other local restaurants, with interest from MCL Cafeteria.

As individual students and campus organizations, such as the Earlham Environmental Action Coalition, Direct Action Coalition and STEP, voiced their frustration and concern about this food waste, a clear grassroots push for something like this project became visible. Leah Robshaw and Daniel Hunter, in the process of doing research for an Earlham College environmental audit, identified the strong concern on campus about this wasted food and decided to investigate the issue further; most notably concerned was the manager of Saga, Kathie Guyler, who volunteered her time and knowledge immediately.

The Earlham Volunteer Exchange (EVE), STEP, and other local community members involved in finding solutions to the issue of poverty and hunger — such as Earlham professor Howard Richards and Circle U Help Center director Gladys Smallwood — identified Richmond as a city with a substantial amount of lower income, working poor, and homeless people who use soup kitchens and food pantries scattered throughout the city. Based on this we contacted organizations in the area already engaged in serving food to those in need, such as the congregations of Mount Olive Baptist Church, St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, New Covenant Life Center, and the Salvation Army. We found a definite need for the left over food from Saga. Realizing this, we decided to develop a plan of action.

Kathie Guyler provided us with information regarding health regulations and legislation like the Good Samaritan Law of 1996. Kathie is also in the process of networking with the general managers of other businesses in the area, such as MCL Cafeteria, to see if they are interested in donating their left over food to this project. We then contacted other Indiana soup kitchens and food banks, such as Meal Share in Bloomington and Second Helping in Evansville, to get advice on how to design the most effective method of food collection, storage and distribution. The campus organization, STEP, identified a serious interest in providing volunteers to help with food transportation and in developing additional food service opportunities within Richmond if there is a need. The EVE and Bonner Scholars service learning programs on campus at Earlham agreed to assist us in the recruitment of committed student volunteers for this project.

As an on-going project, we would like the long-term impact of this food rescue project to be an increase in the meal serving capacity of shelters and pantries in the area. Our hope is that we can initiate this project through grant funding, demonstrate the effectiveness and importance of the food rescue program to Earlham and Richmond, and thus convince the college, campus organizations and local shelters, food pantries, and social service agencies to institutionalize the food rescue system so that it can continue to develop and expand for years to come.

Student volunteers for the project will almost definitely be Bonner Scholars. As such, they will automatically be required to fulfill a Bonner Scholar Reflection Option. For Bonner Scholars, such options include:

• Interview an individual at your site and reflect on their role at the site;

• Create a photo essay, video, or scrapbook that reflects your service to be displayed at your service site;

• Write a 3 page reflection essay addressing such questions as how to improve the site’s program, examining community needs and self-awareness gained through being a volunteer.

Appendix C:

Appendix D:

Appendix E:

1. Earlham College is a member of the EPA Green Lights/Energy Star programs. This project will be conducted and completed according to the Green Lights/Energy Star guidelines and standards. Please address this in your specifications and in your design.

2. In your qualifications, please point out your qualifications in energy management/ energy efficiency and Green Lights/Energy Star programs. Also, please provide information on your previous energy efficiency or Green Lights/Energy Star work. If professionals are certified by the Green Lights or Association of Energy Engineers certification programs, please note this. Please indicate if you have experience with the technical assistance energy audits for school and/or other commercial building energy auditing experience.

3. In your proposal, please describe how you will assure that this facility will comply with EPA Green Lights/Energy Star. One way to assure this is to evaluate incorporating a higher level of energy efficiency into each energy-related building component. With this approach, a "base" energy efficient component would be compared to a component that is more energy efficient. That is, an increase in cost and a decrease in energy use would be estimated, and an estimated payback would be documented.

This type of information and calculation would be conducted for all components where there was the potential for cost-effective energy efficiency improvement. These components would include, but may not be limited to: building envelope components, such as insulation, windows, caulking and sealing; mechanical systems components, such as chillers, boilers, fans, pumps, motors, variable speed drives, HVAC controls, reducing outside air but still meeting the ASHRAE 62-89 ventilation standard through improved filtration, assuring good lifetime indoor air quality by designing easy access to air conditioning and air distribution equipment so that it can be easily maintained and cleaned, etc.; electrical and lighting components, such as energy efficient lighting, occupancy sensors, lighting controls, etc.; and new cutting edge technologies. Energy efficiency indices including, but not limited to: BTU's per square foot, foot candles per square foot, KW per ton, and watts per square foot, should be provided for comparison to Green Lights/Energy Star guidelines.

4. To assure that the design energy efficiency is met over the building's lifetime, the energy evaluation should also evaluate monitoring the energy use of selected components or systems through computerized monitoring. Since the HVAC system will be an automated DDC type, the incremental cost for monitoring some selected temperatures and/or KW amperage draws should be modest.

5. By incorporating energy efficiency and the documentation of the savings from improved energy efficiency into this project from its very beginning, the added design costs should be minimal. For example, many of the BTU energy efficiency numbers and the watts per square foot numbers, are already required for the 90.1 energy code compliance forms. With early integrated planning, if load calculations are done to size an HVAC system, that information can already be computerized, and the same computer program can be used to perform "what if" energy use simulations. When selecting a component, the engineer can ask the vendor for the energy efficiency of the "next higher up" piece of equipment. The difference in efficiencies can be used to estimate the energy savings.

6. Regardless of your approach to complying with Green Lights/Energy Star, the College will require documentation of the energy efficiency of all energy-related components. Also, if you will be using a computerized heating and cooling load calculation program, please indicate which program you will be using, and supply the College with a hard copy of all of the inputs and outputs and also a copy of the inputs on computer disk. If you will be doing heating and cooling load calculations manually, the College will require that you submit copies of these manual calculations and their supporting assumptions, such as calculated envelope R and U values.

7. Also, indicate in your pricing structure the additional cost, if there is any, for your Green Lights/Energy Star analysis component. For your information a brief two page summary of the Green Lights/Energy Star program is attached. It provides phone numbers and internet addresses for more information.

Appendix F:

PO Box 740123 • Atlanta, GA 30374-0123 • Phone: (888) 567-8688

12606 Greenville Ave • Dallas, TX 75243 • Phone: (800) 353-0809

555 West Adams Street • Chicago, IL 60661 • Phone: (800) 680-7293

Appendix G:

Box 9008

Appendix H:

For a copy of the Stop the Junk Mail Kit! Send $11.95 (includes S/H) to:

P.O. Box 612

Ithaca, N.Y. 14851

Appendix I:

Appendix J:

Appendix K:

Appendix L:

What is the point of diversity? Why bother? I think the answers here at Earlham may be different than the answer given in other parts of society. Earlham is an institution of higher learning. We must all recognize that society has traditionally denied people of color and low- income people access to higher education. Therefore, ensuring racial and socio-economic diversity means making a conscious effort to provide access, space, resources and support for those who do not, and have had access to higher education. Making a commitment to being a diverse community means making a commitment to bringing low-income students and students of color here.

One example of how Earlham has shown that we value socio-economic and racial diversity is by having a level of commitment to bringing low-income students to Earlham through admissions practices. By not focusing on a student's financial need when considering admission, Earlham does have a basic commitment to bringing in low-income students. Students do not receive preference because their families can pay a greater portion of the costs to come to school here. This practice and policy is important to maintaining educational opportunities for traditionally marginalized groups.

However, in order to make this practice and policy successful, it must be well supplemented both before and after students are admitted. For example, Earlham must do ample and strategic recruiting of low-income students and students of color to ensure a significant pool of applicants. Earlham’s Board of Trustees, administrators and faculty -- people who have a degree of continuous power and control while generations of Earlham students are more transient -- must be willing to provide stable forms of support for students once they are recruited and admitted. This includes having faculty and counselors of color, as well as white faculty and counselors, who are prepared to provide a base of support that will facilitate the growth of students of color and low-income students. It also includes having strong support within Student Development.

In short, part of becoming a diverse community lies in having the courage to take on the responsibilities of maintaining the physical, spiritual, mental, academic, and organizational health of such a diverse community. Taking on these responsibilities means that we need to reach beyond our current way of dealing with racism. (I am less aware of ways in which we are dealing with classism.)

We seem to have a notion that there are two realms at Earlham, or maybe even in the world: 1) Designated areas and times such as the Multicultural Affairs Office, African-American Studies classes, and organizations like CARPAA [Critical Anti-Racist Political Action Alliance] that deal explicitly with racism, and 2) "Other" areas where we may feel less compelled to address such issues – for example, in the realms of dorm staff, counseling services, and organizations or courses that are not specifically set up to deal with racism.

We need to integrate these two realms so we do not only deal with racism and classism when the title of a course tells us to or the people around us say we should. Diversity cannot be a part-time endeavor; it is a full-time commitment and a way of life that shows a community’s deep regard for social justice. This is what I believe Doug was referring to when he said that "embracing diversity will require each and every one of us to make changes."

Furthermore, we must let the presence of low-income students and students of color fundamentally reconfigure who we are as a community. Those who have traditionally been at institutions of higher education such as Earlham must make changes in both every-day and over- arching thoughts and actions. We must make Earlham, as an institution and as individuals, actively think about and work against race and class oppression – regardless of whether a person of color or low-income person is immediately present. That is ultimately what community is about – being able to think on a broader plane and advocate for justice, even when it is at your expense or discomfort.

We are currently making some slow but impressive strides in the kinds of progress that goes beyond compartmentalizing (intentionally or unintentionally) racism and classism into somewhat token areas. The Curricular Policy Committee is discussing the creation of "multicultural" general education requirements. The Earlham Environmental Action Coalition (EEAC) has been working throughout the year on examining how white privilege and racism impact the environment and the environmental movement. This summer we will welcome as our new Dean of Student Development, Deb McNish, who has said that she is excited about Earlham in part because it coincides with her own anti-elitist ethics.

These are positive steps, but we must ensure that they are not isolated events but part of a larger and well-orchestrated vision for what we want to do and how we want to do it. I would like to see Doug address the development of a coherant plan in his next Word column. However, I recognize that our president, although he can be a catalyst, is not the only person responsible for coming up with a plan and maintaining the integrity of our community. Therefore, I would also invite other administrative and teaching faculty to respond to this article.

Appendix M:

Environmental Grantmaking Foundations is a comprehensive guide to 800 of the most significant independent, community, and company-sponsored foundations that fund environmental projects. It costs $94 but might be a phenomenal resource.

P.O. Box 3665

Cary, North Carolina 27519-3995

1-800-724-1857

e-mail: rgs@environmentalgrants.com

www.envirogrants.com

RECYC-L is a list dedicated to recycling programs at college and university campuses, and related topics of interest to persons responsible for planning and implementing such programs. Such topics might include: recycling in residence halls, cafeterias, stadiums, offices & laboratories; Staffing, equipment, vehicles, education/promotion tactics, costs, hard to handle wastes, waste reduction/prevention, re-use, custodial, contracts, markets, buy recycled, town & gown relations, campus environmental programs, etc. as these issues relate to campus operations and academics. This list is not intended for use to advertise commercial products or political ideologies.

To subscribe, send a message with the subject "SUB REQUEST" to: <RECYC—L@brownvm.brown.edu> In your message, include a brief introduction about yourself and your program. This message is sent to the entire list so all RECYC—Lers know who is joining the list. Your address will then be manually added by one of the List-Owners.

An annual Campus Ecology training clinic is offered by the National Wildlife Foundation. The 1999 theme was "Consuming with a Conscience: Sustainable Procurement on Campuses" Workshops focused on how to design green requirements into the contract process. Topics included: Contract Process, Paper Purchasing, Responsible Investing, Dining Service Procurement, Green Technology, and Ecologically Sound Products.

Contact: James Sharp

Northeast/Mid-Atlantic Field Coordinator

Campus Ecology Program - National Wildlife Federation

Northeast Natural Resources Center

58 State Street

Montpelier, VT 05602

1 (807) 229-0650 +317

nemid@nwf.org