Sustainable Development and its Discontents

Sustainable development (or sustainability) is a decision-making framework for maintaining and achieving human well-being, both in the present and into the future. The framework requires both consideration and achievement of environmental protection, social justice and economic development. In that framework, environmental protection must be integrated into decisions about social and economic development, and social justice and economic viability must be integrated into decisions about environmental quality. First endorsed by the world’s nations in 1992, this framework is intended to provide an effective response to the twin global challenges of growing environmental degradation and widespread extreme poverty. Sustainability provides a framework for humans to live in harmony with nature, rather than at nature’s expense. It may therefore be one of the most important ideas to come out of the 20th century. In the last two decades, the framework has become a touchstone in nearly every economic sector and at every level of government, unleashing an extraordinary range of creativity in all of those realms. Sustainable development is having a significant effect on the practice of law and on the way in which laws are written and implemented. Understanding the framework is increasingly important for law makers and lawyers. As sustainable development (or sustainability) has grown in prominence, its critics have become more numerous and more vocal. Three major lines of criticism are that the term is “too boring” to command public attention, “too vague” to provide guidance, and “too late” to address the world’s problems. Critics suggest goals such as abundance, environmental integrity, and resilience. Beginning with the international agreements that shaped the concept of sustainable development, this Article provides a functional and historical analysis of the meaning of sustainable development. It then analyzes and responds to each of these criticisms in turn. While the critics, understood constructively, suggest ways of strengthening this framework, they do not provide a compelling alternative. The challenge for lawyers, law makers, and others is to use and improve this framework to make better decisions.

Restrictive and Expansive Views of Equality: A Grounded Theory Study that Explores the Influence of Racial Consciousness on the Behaviors of White Faculty in the Classroom

Attempts to address the ever increasing achievement gap among students have failed to explain how and why educational traditions and teaching practices perpetuate the devaluing of some and the overvaluing of others. This predicament, which plagues our educational system, has been of increased concern, given the growing racial diversity among college students and the saturation of White faculty in the academy. White faculty make up the majority, 79%, of all faculty in the academy. White faculty, whether consciously or unconsciously, are less likely to interrogate how race and racism both privilege them within the academy and influence their faculty behaviors. The result of this cyclical, highly cemented process suggests that there is a relationship between racial consciousness and White faculty members' ability to employ behaviors in their classroom that promote equitable educational outcomes for racially minoritized students. An investigation of the literature revealed that racial consciousness and the behaviors of White faculty in the classroom appeared to be inextricably linked. A conceptual framework, Racial Consciousness and Its Influence on the Behaviors of White Faculty in the Classroom was developed by the author and tested in this study. Constructivist grounded theory was used to explore the role White faculty believe they play in the dismantling of the white supremacy embedded in their classrooms through their faculty behaviors. A substantive theory subsequently emerged. Findings indicate that White faculty with a higher level of racial consciousness employ behaviors in their classroom reflective of a more expansive view of equality in their pursuit of social justice, which they consider synonymous with excellence in teaching. This research bears great significance to higher education research and practice, as it is the first of its kind to utilize critical legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw's (1988) restrictive and expansive views of equality framework to empirically measure and describe excellence in college teaching. Implications for faculty preparation and continued education are also discussed.

Social Inequity and Globalization: Understanding Violent and Nonviolent Responses

Globalization generates economic growth that is dominated by the free market dynamics of liberalization, deregulation, and privatization. The benefits of this growth are not distributed equally. The resulting inequities cause poverty, marginalization, exclusion, and instability. People respond to these inequities in both positive/nonviolent and negative/violent ways. This capstone project investigates the reasons for divergent responses to globalization by contrasting the underlying social factors in two case studies: peace communities in Colombia and piracy in Somalia. By measuring the level of vulnerability, considering security in a variety of domains, and examining stress on socio-cultural norms, this project develops a social factors framework for understanding the reasons for negative/violent versus positive/nonviolent responses to globalization.

Remembering Liberal Feminism In Radical Ways: Locating Conservative Strategies In The Narratives Of Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers, Tammy Bruce, And Dr. Laura Schlessinger

This dissertation identifies and challenges post-feminist narratives that remember the second wave or 1960s and 1970s liberal feminism as a radical form of activism. The narratives of three prominent post-feminist authors: Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers, Tammy Bruce and Dr. Laura Schlessinger are used as examples of how identification works as a rhetorical device that motivates individual actors to join in a struggle against liberal and radical feminist ideologies. I argue that each author draws on classically liberal and politically conservative virtues to define a "true" feminism that is at odds with alternative feminist commitments. I demonstrate how these authors create a subject position of a "true feminist" that is reminiscent of the classically liberal suffragist. In Burkean terms, each author constitutes the suffragist as a friend and juxtaposes her with the enemy--modern liberal and radical feminists. I articulate the consequences of such dialectical portrayals of feminist activism and further suggest that these authors' visions of feminism reinforce patriarchal practices, urging women to assimilate into a classically liberal society at the cost of social justice. In opposition to their memories of feminism, I offer a radical democratic approach of remembering feminism that is less concerned with the definition of feminism or feminist than it is with holistically addressing oppression and what oppression means to subjugated populations.

Adding Color to Feminism: White Privilege Within the Women's Liberation Movement.

This paper will explore how white privilege has been intertwined with the women's liberation movement in the United States. Feminism and its goals are described briefly and linked to an evaluation of white privilege within the movement. The feminist movement is explored throughout its three waves, including a class and race analysis of each separate period. In addition, this analysis focuses on how Black and Chicana women have been excluded from the mainstream, White, middle-class movement. Through the use of Social Dominance Theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), the prevalence and impact of oppression and hierarchy are explored. The implications of oppression and exclusion in the current political climate are followed by suggestions for aligning the goals and direction of feminism with social justice.