Philosophy professor Felicia Nimue Ackerman declined an offer to incorporate climate change in her course.
A FEW MONTHS AGO, I received an e-mail offering me a “very exciting” opportunity. Unlike most such e-mails, it was not after my money. It was after what I guard much more carefully: my time and my ideological commitment. It asked Brown University’s philosophy professors to participate in a national movement called “Focus the Nation” and to “devote a portion of class time” on Jan. 31 or during that week “to teach about climate change as it relates to your discipline.”
She declined, because:
Reason 1: Climate change is not what students signed up to study in my courses.
Neither of the courses I am teaching this term has anything to do with climate change. I would not pay my veterinarian if he talked about climate change instead of examining my cat....
Reason 2: I am unqualified to teach about climate change.
I am not an expert on climate change. I am not an expert on how climate change might relate to philosophy. Rather than taking the time to become an expert on these topics, I prefer to pursue the intellectual interests I already have.
Reason 3: My students can have better opportunities to learn about climate change.
Brown University has physicists, geologists, chemists, biologists and engineers. Brown probably also has non-scientists who are interested in becoming experts on climate change as it relates to their disciplines. Experts can offer courses and teach-ins on climate change. Why not leave the teaching about climate change to them?
Reason 4: I do not think climate change is the most important social problem in the world.
I am not disputing the scientific consensus about the technical aspects of climate change. As a non-scientist, I would have to be a crackpot to think that I know more than scientists about scientific matters. But I can have my own views about priorities. Climate change holds danger of future catastrophes. But other catastrophes are happening right now.
No comments:
Post a Comment