FGCU thus teaches the highly contested idea of anthropogenic global warming; engages in voluntyranny; mandates student action on behalf of the “imperative for ecological sustainability”; and buys in to the self-justifying mediocrity of the outcomes movement. The University is forthright in its efforts to provide across-the-board sustainability education; students who choose to attend FGCU doubtless know what they’re signing up for.
But a group of students at have decided they’d like to be free of such cult-like eco-devotion and still attend
- If the course is intended to share opinions and promote discussion, it should offer diverse viewpoints in the required course materials.
- If the course is intended to present scientific information, it should avoid politically motivated material (such as An Inconvenient Truth and The Story of Stuff) and utilize only objective data.
- Presenting subjective opinion as objective science is not desirable in an academic environment.
If the material presented in the Colloquium course is as important as claimed, students will voluntarily opt to take the course based on their own self-interest.
Signers have the opportunity to leave a comment. Here are some notable remarks:
“The majority of the Students who have taken Colloquium have come out the class hating it, which defeats the original purpose of the course. Making the class a choice or providing alternatives is a much better solution for promoting a better attitude toward the environment.”
“I'm an Environmental Science major and I can't stand these biased [...] classes.”
GIVE US A CHOICE - I'm not a [sic] Enviro-Socialist and don't need to be indoctrinated as one...
Us liberals can't stand it, either
Wasicsko also created a Facebook group (“Colloquium: Give Us a Choice”) that in just over a week of existence has gained 771 members and has become a forum for discussion of the petition and the Colloquium. Shawna J argues there that the course is mandated for a good reason—to help fulfill the University’s clearly stated mission:
Changing the curriculum because of freedom of choice would be changing the outlook of the University. Mandated IDS courses uphold the mission and should continue to be required.
But James Crews, a self-proclaimed liberal who believes in global warming, says:
Colloquium is drudgery for more reasons than the supposed “liberal bias.” [...] I don't like Colloquium because it brings together a class of uninspired pupils and an uninspired instructor to talk in circles and get nowhere. [...] Having this class to appease some dead orange magnate as a sincere act of atonement for pillaging the local ecosystem really makes no sense.
Back on the Facebook page, Todd Bursztyn protests the use of taxpayer funds to teach an ideology:
Suffered through this course years ago. Did I learn a few things? Yes. Did I leave the course feeling somewhat enriched? Perhaps. Was I bombarded unendingly with a one-sided viewpoint that is not only politically biased but irrelevant to my aspirations as a student and professional? Absolutely. The idea of a MANDATED course, especially one that flirts so coquettishly with glorified propaganda, is downright irresponsible, particularly in a
Bursztyn’s sentiments coincide with Wasicsko’s clarification of the objective:
This petition does not seek to place a value judgment on the course material, but rather to suggest an alternative method of implementation: one that promotes free choice, not mandates, as a way to further academic freedom.
Wasicsko says the message the Eagles for
We at the National Association of Scholars salute these efforts. While there is arguably value in having a core curriculum for all students (now a nearly extinct concept), the purpose of such a curriculum should be to make sure students graduate having taken at least basic courses in core subjects such as mathematics, science, literature, and history. Sustainability and the premises of the Earth Charter are not core subjects, and the Eagles for