This process has culminated in the decision, announced earlier this month, to split the program into three majors—environmental biology, environmental earth sciences and environmental policy—a move we support. In April, we asked Dean McLeod, among others, to ensure that any changes made be positive, changes that advanced environmental studies and cemented the University’s commitment to an increasingly important area of scholarship. These new majors are a step forward, and will, in the words of program director Tiffany Knight, offer “more depth of study in each home department” and “prepare students for undergraduate research experiences, graduate school and environmental careers.”

We also wrote last spring that the University administration must give weight to student input when determining the program’s future, and we commend Wash. U. for answering our challenge. Though not everyone will be thrilled with the changes, student opinion seems to be on the whole supportive of the recent proposals. Our own analysis finds much to be happy with, including a maintained emphasis on the interdisciplinary nature of environmental studies, the exposure that new environmental studies majors will have to the faculty and the unique modes of thinking present in each academic department.

Nevertheless, we are not without concerns, specifically regarding the environmental policy major, which is still in development. Though the major will be based in the political science department, we hope this will not distract from the need for a firm grasp of the fundamental science behind environmental issues such as global climate change. Knight says the major “will be quite rigorous, and I trust my colleagues in political science to create a curriculum that will prepare students to be leaders in this field.” We trust the faculty as well, but we feel compelled to request that students majoring in environmental policy be required to take courses in physics, geology and biology. Strong environmental policy demands strong students of science, students able to understand and analyze the environment from a political perspective while adhering to the fundamentals of good science.

We support the University’s plan for a more up-to-date Environmental Studies program; the modifications are needed to guarantee that Wash. U. students are prepared for an economy increasingly geared toward sustainability and “green” technologies. These moves should help to guarantee that Wash. U. remains a leader in higher education.

The program will be divided into three new majors: environmental biology and environmental earth sciences, which are pending final approval, and environmental social science, which is still in development. Current students will be grandfathered into the old major but can opt for one of the new majors if they prefer.

The environmental studies major has grown in popularity, with 166 environmental studies majors graduating in 2010. But it has been eight years since the program was last evaluated, and students, faculty and administrators want to modernize it.

“We should always be thinking about changing the curriculum when we have a dynamic field like environmental studies…or we won’t be providing you with the most contemporary education,” said Tiffany Knight, the director of the environmental studies program.

A forum on Wednesday addressed the new changes to the environmental studies program.

According to Knight, the previous program options had too much breadth, and the new division into three majors will allow students to study an area in depth while still being exposed to all major aspects of environmental studies.

The difference between the environmental biology major and the ecology and evolution track of the biology major is that the environmental biology major has more of a geoscience concentration. Furthermore, there are fewer general science requirements—students are required to take only one semester of physics and can choose options to replace organic chemistry.

“I think it’s a terrific major,” Knight said. “I’m really proud of it.”

The new major should give environmental studies students more research opportunities in the biology fields.

The second new major option is environmental earth sciences.

“It is very science-heavy, but it is very interdisciplinary,” said David Fike, assistant professor of earth and planetary sciences. “It also ties in a very organic way to some social science aspects.”

The environmental earth sciences major is more hard science-intensive than the old geoscience track of environmental studies. It affords more options in its basic requirements than does earth and planetary sciences. But students only have to complete one semester of physics and are not required to take Calculus III. More of an emphasis is placed on environmental ethics than on the hard science of the environment. Students can choose to focus their studies in one of three areas: climate and energy, human-altered environments and life in its environments.

The final major option, environmental social science, will be housed in the political science department. “Our focus is to try to think about a major that would allow you to study human interactions with the environment,” said William Lowry, associate professor of political science.

While the major will be in the political science department, it will also include classes from other departments, including anthropology and economics.

According to Lowry, the foundation courses for this track may be Earth and the Environment, Introduction to Environmental Biology, Introduction to Environmental Policy, Ethics and Environmental Policy and Culture and the Environment. There should also be research and other upper-level requirements.

But the department has not yet finalized the new major so its requirements have not been offically established.

“The meeting [Tuesday] was very positive,” Lowry said. “I’m excited that my colleagues in the political science department are being so thoughtful about considering this major.”

Students are also looking forward to the new major.

“I think it’s definitely a major that can prepare students to go into the world and make really tough policy decisions on environmental issues,” junior Arielle Klagsbrun said.

Lowry expects his department to finalize the new major by the end of the month.

Students should be allowed to declare the biology and earth sciences majors by October after the full College of Arts & Sciences faculty meeting votes on the approval of the majors.

While the three majors will be housed in different departments, the environmental studies program is working on a way to connect the three majors.

Suggestions to connect the majors include a seminar series and student and faculty gatherings.

Students are very pleased with the new major options.

“Before I was thinking about doing environmental studies in the University, but I saw all these courses that are very mixed so I didn’t know which to choose,” freshman Wantong Li said.

“I think that student opinion was definitely taken into account and the process this summer was pretty transparent and open,” Klagsbrun said.

Senior Tristan Sopp, who coordinated the forums for students to familiarize themselves with the changes, likes the new options.

“I’m definitely really pleased with the new majors. My reaction is mostly that they greatly improved the focus on each of them,” Sopp said. “Before, with the different tracks, they were a little more open and you kind of made your own path through them, which is good and bad. Now with the new ones you’re able to focus on a more specific area and get the depth and rigor that wasn’t in the old ones.”

The panelists at the forum urge students to check the new major requirements online at: www.enst.wustl.edu.

With the departure of three professors in the field, the program’s structure is currently under review. According to James McLeod, vice chancellor for students and dean of the College of Arts & Sciences, there have been no specific changes finalized yet.

Senior Kady McFadden explained that students were prompted to organize the town hall meeting after learning about restructuring efforts and a later e-mail sent by McLeod to all environmental studies students explaining these beginning efforts.

“We really wanted to make sure that students had a say in what happened before decisions were made,” McFadden said. “So, we didn’t want to just react to what administration decided, but we wanted to really be given the chance to engage with what we wanted to see in a program we’re so clearly invested in.”

McLeod told students at the town hall that those currently completing the environmental studies major or minor will still be able to leave Wash. U. with their planned degree.

The environmental studies major allows students to focus on environmental issues from a social science, geoscience or biology/ecology track.

The number of students pursuing the major has more than doubled in the past 10 years. Fifty majors are expected to graduate this year alone. New faculty members have been difficult to find, and expansion of the major has not matched this increased interest throughout the University for environmental studies.

Current professors Clare Palmer, John Orrock and Ellen Damschen expect to leave at the end of this year. For the program, Palmer teaches an environmental ethics course and introduction to environmental studies. Orrock teaches a course in behavioral ecology and Damschen teaches introduction to ecology. Both introductory courses are required for majors and minors. Behavioral ecology and the environmental ethics courses are electives.

Students hope that this is an opportunity to improve the program.

“A lot of students voiced here [at the town hall] that they want to see growth in the courses,” said freshman Jeremy Pivor, a biology/ecology track environmental studies major. “So what would be really nice to see is core courses where everyone in each of the tracks takes the courses together to learn about just in general environmental studies…and then, within their tracks, growth and specialization in areas they want to learn instead of the constant overlap of topics.”

Students at the town hall also voiced the hope that the program will maintain its interdisciplinary nature and, in the long term, turn into a department. They further look forward to future collaborations with the leaders of the environmental studies program and the dean’s office.

“I definitely think [the town hall] was a productive discussion, but it definitely will not be the last,” McFadden said. “We want students and faculty involved in the decisions that are being made in the future. We’re looking for Dean McLeod to at least accept a program in which students will be integrally involved in the decision-making.”

Within the coming weeks, McFadden and other students will form a plan to present to the administration detailing what they want in the major semester by semester.

Some students are still wary of potential parallels between the future of the program and the controversial actions of Mary Sansalone, former dean of the engineering school.

“There were a lot of similarities drawn last night [at the meeting] by students between this and what happened in the engineering school with Dean Sansalone,” said sophomore Arielle Klagsbrun, one of the organizers of the town hall. “I really hope that the school learns from the mistakes that happened in that time period and looks at how they can be transparent in their decisions and how students can be involved…in whatever restructuring they’re going to do.”

Sansalone had upset engineering students, faculty and alumni by making decisions regarding the school without much input from others.

“We all want a stronger effort. We want the study of the environment here, and that makes it a good discussion, a wonderful exchange,” McLeod said. “I heard from [students that] I need to keep them informed. That seems loud and clear—that needs to be a process.”

The author, Kady McFadden, expressed three concerns in the report. First and foremost, she hopes to see an interdisciplinary class offered on climate change as soon as possible.

“Although you can get knowledge on the issue from a bunch of different classes, we really need a comprehensive class that gives a broad perspective of the issue, including science, economics, policy, ethics and so on,” McFadden said.

Second, McFadden believes that environmental studies majors need more out-of-class experience. She thinks that the University should provide students with resources such as additional internship programs and research opportunities. Third, she hopes the program will evolve into a department.

Many of McFadden’s fellow students echo her concerns.

“Climate change is a very prevalent subject of our day,” said Lynne Dzubow, a sophomore majoring in environmental studies (ENST). “We really need to put a priority on getting a climate change course here at Wash. U. Also, many environmental-related jobs require students to know about climate change in an academic setting.”

To support McFadden’s argument and gauge interest in the new class, she, along with fellow students, organized a survey given to students across the University on behalf of the Academic Subcommittee of the Emissions Awareness Committee. The subcommittee works to expand the curriculum in the environmental studies program.

The results show that, among the 412 students surveyed, 60 percent are interested in the field of environmental studies; 60 percent are not satisfied with the variety of classes offered by the current ENST program; one-third said they are very likely to take the class on climate change if offered; and more than half of the students surveyed are willing to see the environmental studies program expanded into a department. Many suggest that this would help increase full-time, devoted faculty members, eliminate course redundancy and increase environmental awareness on campus.

Many faculty members in the environmental studies program also support the idea of having an interdisciplinary course on climate change. But they pointed out that a lack of resources might prevent this from happening immediately.

“We currently have few faculty in the ENST program, and all of the faculty we do have are already busy teaching courses that are required for the major,” said Tiffany Knight, the assistant director of the environmental studies program. “We would certainly like to create [a class], but the resources are not available for that at present.”

McFadden agrees that there are not enough resources available for the increasing interest in the department.

“The number of students majoring in environmental studies has doubled in the last two years,” McFadden said. “However, the number of classes and faculty only increased slightly. I think we need to add a lot more resources, hire more faculty [and] help students out in that field.”

Still, the University will offer a freshman seminar next semester on geo-engineering in the earth and planetary sciences department about proposals to deliberately manipulate the earth’s climate, taught jointly by professors Jennifer Smith and David Fike.

One topic that really interested me in my Intro to Environmental Studies: Social Sciences class last semester was how environmentalism in the United States can cause problems in Third World countries. When environmental laws are passed in the United States that tighten regulations or outlaw harmful processes, manufacturing companies often outsource production to poor countries instead of cleaning up their manufacturing processes. As a result, poor people bear a disproportionate burden of landfills, radioactive material and untreated wastewater, among other environmental hazards. The people who are most disenfranchised and least able to protect themselves are most likely to be exploited. This is why it is so crucial to strengthen and enforce the environmental laws in developing countries, especially.

That’s where the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance comes in. A large part of what my supervisor Cheryl Wasserman’s job entailed was providing training in other countries to strengthen the enforcement of environmental laws, and to make sure corporations complied with them. Under the Central America Free Trade Agreement-Dominican Republic, several environmental provisions took effect in Guatemala, Costa Rica, El Salvador and the Dominican Republic. For every mine, dam, hotel or any major project that is proposed, there is an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) that assesses the impacts and alternatives to a project. During the training sessions, people who work at the EPA equivalents in these countries are trained to perform EIA reviews.

Ideally, when countries around the world have environmental laws that are enforced and complied with, corporations won’t be able to outsource production to poorer areas, and socioeconomic status won’t affect access to basic resources. I find it ironic that the United States trains a large number of environmental enforcement programs in other countries, yet at the same time the United States was a major holdback to international climate negotiation in Kyoto. Globalization and outsourcing of production make environmentalism about so much more than just the environment. It’s about the infrastructure of governments, human rights, health, the economy and the way people around the world live.