Record: 1 Title: Whose voice sets the agenda for environmental education? Misconceptions inhibiting racial and... Author(s): Lewis, Susan James, Kathy Source: Journal of Environmental Education; Spring95, Vol. 26 Issue 3, p5, 8p Document Type: Editorial Subject(s): ENVIRONMENTAL education Geographic Term(s): UNITED States Abstract: Opinion. Comments on the misconceptions which limit the growth of racial and cultural diversity in environmental education programs in the United States. Questions on the suitability of environmental education programs in a multicultural setting; Importance of changing curriculum makers; Involvement of people of color as role models in environmental education. Full Text Word Count: 6187 ISSN:00958964 Accession Number: 9507113993 Persistent Link to this Article: http://search.epnet.com/direct.asp? an=9507113993&db=afh Cut and Paste: Whose voice sets the agenda for environmental education? Misconceptions inhibiting racial and... Database: Academic Search Elite ------Section: VIEWPOINT WHOSE VOICE SETS THE AGENDA FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION? MISCONCEPTIONS INHIBITING RACIAL AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY Contents The Alternative: An Integrated Environmental Agenda Evaluating Existing Programs ACKNOWLEDGMENTS REFERENCES NOTES

In his critical look at the state of environmental education, Gigliotti (1990) claimed that environmental education has fallen short of its goals. His criticism was partially based on the observation that environmental education has not been effective at addressing the concerns of people of color, a rapidly growing portion of the population. In theory, there should be no reason not to include people from diverse backgrounds. The theoretical foundations of environmental education emphasize the inclusiveness of the field. For instance, the Federal Environmental Education Act defines environmental education as "a study of the factors influencing ecosystems, mental and physical growth, living and working conditions, decaying cities, and population pressures" (U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1971). By recognizing the "environment" as all-encompassing and "environmental issues" as social, physical, and economic as well as ecological, this definition establishes an inclusive framework that demonstrates that the goal of environmental education is improved quality of life for everyone (see also Disinger, 1986).

In practice, environmental education is not necessarily as inclusive as the theory would suggest. For example, in a study of resident environmental education camps in the Pacific Northwest, Ham et al. (1985) concluded that the "curricular emphasis was on biological science with human ecological topics largely absent" (p. 11). Despite 2 decades since the inclusive theoretical framework for environmental education was developed, practical curricular applications exemplifying this framework are hard to find. While trying to develop an environmental education program in urban Los Angeles, Baker noted, "I could find few environmental education materials appropriate to a multi-cultural, urban setting" (1991,p. 5). Although some programs already embody the inclusive ideals of environmental education, the readily available curricula typically are more limited.

Limitations within the curricula may restrict the diversity of people involved in all levels of environmental education. This, in turn, produces a widespread perception that the field is not truly inclusive: "For too long environmental education has emphasized the values and lifestyles of white, middle-class students; yet environmental issues impact all races and all socioeconomic groups" (Sly, 1991, p. 2). The focus on the values and lifestyles Of a select group creates barriers to diversity in environmental education program personnel and audiences.

Ideally, environmental education will involve many voices in creating agendas for program planning and implementation. This is not simply an issue of altering the curriculum, but of who creates the curriculum. At a 1991 curriculum revision workshop to create environmental education curricula relevant to an increasingly diverse student population, one workshop participant pointed out a barrier to meeting the workshop's goal: Those who were creating an inclusive curriculum were almost-all from White, middle-class, or upper-middle-class backgrounds. According to Gibson and Moriah (1989), "It would be difficult for Whites from middle and upper class suburbia to design, dictate or present a program to benefit minorities" (p. 225). The lack of representation of people of color in this curriculum revision workshop and many others like it is a product of societal history that educators need to recognize, accept, and work to counter in preparation for the future.

Throughout this article, we discuss both environmental education and environmentalism. As articulated by Stapp et al. (1969):

Environmental education is aimed at producing a citizenry that is knowledgeable concerning the biophysical environment and its associated problems, aware of how to help these problems, and motivated to work toward their solution. (p. 30)

We use the term environmentalism to refer to the philosophy of people who act upon this motivation to work toward the solution of problems addressed in environmental education. As such, environmental education and environmentalism are inherently tied.

In this article, we call for increasing racial and cultural diversity among those setting the agendas of environmental education. We discuss seven misconceptions that we have encountered in our work and research in environmental education that impede the participation of people of color. We also present evidence refuting each misconception, to encourage greater dialogue about racial diversity among environmental educators. We assert that one critical first step toward racial diversity in environmental education is learning to recognize inaccurate assumptions about race. We conclude with a list of questions educators can use to evaluate their own programs and to identify steps to increase diversity within those programs.

Misconception 1: People of color aren't interested in environmental issues.

Although the United States is experiencing a great increase in racial diversity (Gigliotti, 1990; Grant, 1988), this heterogeneity is not reflected by membership in the major environmental organizations nationwide (Berle, 1987; Bullard & Wright, 1990; Paterson, 1991). It is often assumed that interest in the environment is demonstrated by membership in and financial contributions to these organizations, leading many to conclude that people of color are not interested in environmental issues (Baker, 1991). Moreover, several authors have suggested that when compared with Whites,[1] people of color are less interested in environmental issues (Hershey & Hill, 1977; Kreger, 1973; Van Arsdol et al., 1963; Washburne, 1978) and less likely to notice pollution (Kreger, 1973; Van Arsdol, 1963). As Dolin (1988) noted in his critique of studies addressing racial differences in attitudes toward wildlife, critical analysis of these studies must consider whether they are asking appropriate questions using unbiased terminology. This standard may weaken the validity of studies intended to measure racial differences in environmental attitudes. For example, to measure whether respondents could conceptualize a hazard they have not seen, Hershey and Hill (1977) asked respondents how they would react to a store in their city selling coats made from endangered tigers' fur. The article states, "Twice as many blacks as whites responded that they would do nothing, because it wasn't their business, or because the question of endangered tigers did not seem especially relevant or serious to them" (p. 447). The article does not indicate that the study controlled for socioeconomic status, a factor that might play a significant role in determining the apparent relevance of issues related to fur coats. The results might be more reliable and unbiased if a variety of scenarios were tested, including, for example, endangered species, waste-facility siting, and farm-pesticide exposure.

Recent research demonstrates that when other measures of environmental interest are used, people of color are interested in environmental issues. Studies using the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP, Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978), which measures general environmental dispositions rather than attitudes toward specific environmental issues, found similar overall levels of interest in environmental issues regardless of race (Caron, 1989; Noe & Snow, 1989, 1990). In a comparison of environmental attitudes of White and African American sample groups, Caron (1989) found that "neither sample showed an overall greater or lesser agreement with the pro-environmental perspective; rather, they showed specific differences on particular items but general overall similarity and agreement with the NEP" (p. 24). Furthermore, there is a growing body of literature documenting work by people of color addressing environmental issues ranging from waste disposal (Alston, 1990; Atkinson, 1990; Bullard, 1990b, 1991, 1992; Bullard & Wright, 1990; Freudenberg & Steinsapir, 1991; Grossman, 1991, 1992; Hamilton, 1990, 1991; Kay, 1991; Russell, 1989; Villarosa, 1991), to industrial pollution (Atkinson, 1990; Villarosa, 1991), the use of agricultural pesticides (Alston, 1990; Atkinson, 1990; Lewis, 1990), lead contamination (Day & Knight, 1991), energy development (Alston, 1990), and transportation (Alston, 1990; Smith, 1990). Misconception 2: Historically, people of color have not been involved in environmental issues, resulting in a dearth of people of color who can serve as role models in environmental education.

Historical accounts of the development of environmental education typically describe events such as the work of John Muir to establish Yosemite Park or the publication of Silent Spring by Rachel Carson. The environmentalists recognized in the development of the environmental movement were predominantly educated, upper-middle-class and upper- class Whites. The contributions and struggles of people of color are rarely included. Yet examples exist of the historic contribution of people of color to environmental education and environmentalism. When Yosemite was designated as a park, there was as yet no national park service to manage the land and protect the park. The army was sent in to perform this task. The job was assigned to the 9th and 10th units of the United States Cavalry, the segregated African American units nicknamed the "Buffalo Soldiers"[2]. They were among the first park rangers, yet their contribution to the development of the conservation movement is rarely mentioned. People of color also have a history of struggling to oppose some forms of pollution. Three days after Silent Spring was published, a group of Latino farmworkers gathered for the charter meeting of the AFL-CIO to discuss what could be done to fight the use of DDT in the fields, which was causing skin rashes, dizziness, respiratory ailments, miscarriages, birth defects, cancer, and deaths. This struggle is rarely recognized within environmental histories (Lewis, 1990). Including this information when discussing the history of environmental issues in the United States provides examples that will teach all students to expect environmental education to be racially diverse.

Misconception 3: The issues receiving primary attention in the environmental education curricula have universal appeal.

Many authors recognize that to be most effective, environmental education curricula should focus on the issues directly affecting the audience (Gigliotti, 1990; Ham et al., 1985; Kaplan, 1974; Lewis, 1993). Issues involving forests and lakes are most relevant to those who experience them frequently. As such, they are an important environmental education vehicle for those audiences. By primarily addressing issues related to wilderness ecology and preservation, environmental education may not address issues faced daily by populations who rarely experience these environments. Nearly 80% of the U.S. population lives in metropolitan areas (Dillon, 1992). Urban audiences who do not have frequent experiences with forest and lake environments might respond better to issues affecting their daily lives, such as air pollution, soil lead contamination, toxic waste, or urban wildlife. Rural audiences might find issues, such as the health effects of pesticides or prevention of erosion, to be most relevant. Any program that addresses a limited set of issues will not find appeal among all audiences. The key point is that environmental education programs achieve their appeal by tailoring programs to meet the needs of the audiences.

The implicit paradigm of environmental education may also limit the appeal of environmental issues. A prominent model of environmental education states that the superordinate goal of environmental education is to educate citizens "to work, individually and collectively, toward achieving and/or maintaining a dynamic equilibrium between quality of life and quality of the environment" (Hungerford et al, 1980, p. 43). This goal implies a dichotomy between quality of life and quality of the environment and denies their interdependence (Lewis, 1993). Within this dichotomy, those concerned with improved quality of life may not be recognized as working toward the goals of environmental education (perceived as improved "environmental" quality). This implicit dichotomy leads to the simplistic "jobs versus the environment" arguments that divide those working on natural environmental quality from those addressing quality of life. Furthermore, this division is assumed to fall between those whose jobs would be secure and those whose jobs would be jeopardized when environmental quality is emphasized. One can interpret this as an issue of socioeconomic status, but given that people of color have typically faced disproportionately high unemployment rates in the United States, the issue can also be seen to have racial implications.

When setting the agenda for environmental education, educators make decisions about which issues influencing quality of life to address. These decisions affect program appeal. The focus of many environmental education programs suggests that exposure to natural environments is a prominent component of quality of life. Although this exposure may be important, some people may find other quality of life issues more significant, such as pollution, water quality, air quality, exposure to toxics, or lead poisoning. These issues affect another interpretation of improved quality of life, one that may be less closely tied to exposure to natural areas and that may be lacking in environmental education programs. Many of these issues are currently being discussed by grass-roots environmental and environmental education movements of people of color (Alston, 1990; Anthony, 1990; Bryant, 1991; Bryant & Mohai, 1991; Bullard, 1990b, 1991, 1992; Bullard & Wright, 1986, 1990; Day & Knight, 1991; Glasheen, 1991; Sanchez, 1988). Often the primary focus of this work is not on natural areas and wildlife, but on urban and rural natural resource quality. Work toward improving quality of life in these ways can be overlooked as an important component of environmental education if our measure of quality of life is exposure to natural areas.

Misconception 4: People of color aren't interested in pursuing careers in environmental education.

Environmental education is often visible in pristine settings, making the connections between environmental education and wilderness preservation more intuitively obvious than the connections between environmental education and issues such as urban soil lead contamination. The latter may be more frequently labeled an issue of urban development or community health than environmental education and this labeling may prevent greater racial diversity given that those who have not been exposed to environmental education may be unaware of the field. For example, in a recent study of factors influencing racial diversity in environmental education (James, 1993), one respondent who taught environmental education in her public school science classes stated:

I didn't know what an environmental educator was . . . . to me it was something that was not offered . . . when I was an undergraduate. [Instead] it was a core curriculum that was set by the university I attended; it was science, where the sciences were the hard sciences, so to speak: Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and then mathematics type stuff. There was not an environmental education option.

Until environmental education is more visible within communities of color as a field that addresses issues pertinent to the community, people of color interested in addressing "environmental issues" may pursue careers in fields such as public health or urban planning rather than environmental education per se.

Misconception 5: The needs of people of color are recognized and addressed by those setting the environmental education agenda.

We believe that it is inappropriate to assume that the issues receiving primary attention in environmental education have universal appeal. The appeal of programs stems from their ability to address the interests and needs of the audience. One must question whether the needs of people of color are currently being addressed adequately in environmental education. Much of the research in the literature that might be used to determine the content of environmental education programs involves surveys of college classes at large universities (Borden & Francis, 1978; Borden & Schettino, 1979; Gifford et al., 1983; Hines & Gifford, 1990; Pettus & Giles, 1987; Thompson & Gasteiger, 1985), in which typically less than 10% of the student body comprises people of color. These studies therefore cannot measure the needs and interests of diverse sectors of the population.

The needs and interests of people of color might be recognized and addressed in setting the environmental education agenda in one of two ways. First, and ideally, people of color should be an integral part of all levels of planning and implementation in environmental education. Second, if those involved in this process are not representative of all segments of society, those setting the agenda must ensure that it is inclusive with regard to content, teaching and learning styles, and channels of communication (see Misconception 6).

In our experience, people of color have not been an integral part of all levels of planning and implementation in formal environmental education. As noted above, even at an environmental education curriculum revision workshop intended to create an inclusive environmental education curriculum, those in attendance were predominantly from White middle- or upper-middle-class backgrounds. It is difficult to document the extent to which people of color are involved in formulating the goals and policies of environmental education because many of the professional environmental associations do not keep statistics on the racial composition of their members. We therefore conclude that participants at environmental education conferences are representative of the members of sponsoring organizations: predominantly Whites. Even when people of color attend such conferences, they may not be recognized. At the 1992 Minnesota State Environmental Education conference, as one keynote speaker described the need for diversity in environmental education by commenting that "the Anglo American audience" at the conference provided a visible measure of the problem, one African American in the audience loudly cleared his throat, illustrating the need to recognize diversity when it exists.

Misconception 6: Environmental education programs are presented in ways that appeal to all audiences.

The environmental education agenda must ensure that it is inclusive with regard to content, teaching and learning styles, and channels of communication. Greater attention to these elements might facilitate and encourage diversity in environmental education programs. As we have previously discussed, environmental education is most effective when it addresses issues relevant to its audience, but the current content of environmental education programs may not be perceived as relevant to people of color, especially in urban areas. As one example, studies show that people of color are disproportionately likely to be exposed to environmental hazards (Bullard 1990a, 1990b; Bullard & Wright, 1986; Day & Knight, 1991; Grossman, 1992; Lee, 1987; Smith, 1990). These issues are likely to be perceived as critical environmental issues to those facing such exposure.

Although these are environmental hazards, they cannot be fully understood solely through scientific studies of the impact of these hazards upon the environment. The origin of these hazards, and the means to alleviate them, rest in the interplay of social, economic, political, and environmental forces. These forces need to be included in the content of environmental education programs if they are to be relevant to those most directly affected by such hazards. Bryant and Weahkie (1992) noted that this raises several critical questions environmental education must face:

How can educational programs be designed to address environmental issues as well as issues of social, economic, and political equity? How can educational programs incorporate scientific information and analyses into policy making decisions? . . . Environmental science (or natural resources) curricula must include these inquiries. When curricula fail to address these concerns they become part of the problem, not the solution. (p. 165)

Appropriate content cannot be effective unless it is presented in a manner that is compatible with the learning styles of the intended audience. Although some environmental education literature addresses variations in learning styles relative to seeing, hearing, and doing (James, 1990), discussions of variations in learning styles relative to racial background have not been addressed in previous environmental education literature. Calloway (in press) summarized an array of educational research addressing the predominant learning styles of various racial groups and the ramifications of this information on environmental education. Environmental educators should be aware of racial and cultural differences in learning styles when creating programs and selecting the teaching styles with which programs will be implemented.

Finally, the typical channels of communication used to disseminate environmental education material may preclude racial diversity in environmental education (James, 1993). Given that environmental education may not be presented as an option for people even if they are interested in environmental issues, outreach and recruitment will be needed to solicit input. Outreach will need to deviate from mainstream environmental literature: For example, any conference that advertises only in The Journal of Environmental Education will reach only those who already identify as environmental educators and subscribe to this journal. Outreach through professional journals, magazines, newspapers, and radio shows targeted toward people of color may increase diversity within environmental education. For example, the next curriculum revision workshop might find it fruitful to advertise in publications such as The Three Circle Center for Multicultural Environmental Education Newsletter, Race, Poverty and the Environment, or Environics. Diversity in channels of communication might lead to greater diversity within the field.

Misconception 7: Environmental educators should initiate and facilitate a discussion of the environmental education agenda by people of color.

In addressing racial diversity in environmental education, we need to avoid assuming that people of color have not been involved in environmental education. One may document that people of color have rarely been active within a narrow definition of environmental education, but under the Federal Environmental Education Act definition of environmental education provided above, people of color have certainly been active. Yet summaries of the history of environmental movements and environmental education have often overlooked African American, Latino, Asian American, and Native American environmental struggles and grassroots environmental groups (Bullard & Wright, 1990). This historical oversight gives the impression that environmentalists should bring the message to people of color.

We suggest instead that environmental educators become familiar with and draw upon recent contributions by people of color to environmental issues and environmental education. For example, in October 1991, the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit drew together over 600 people of color working on environmental issues to set a unified environmental agenda. One of the key topics of the summit was environmental education. The summit was called "a significant and pivotal step in a process whereby people of color are organizing themselves and their constituencies for self-determination and self-empowerment around the central issue of environmental justice . . . . No longer shall others define our future; our very survival is at stake" (Edmonds, 1991, p. 2). Many of the organizations participating in this summit were listed in Bullard's People of Color Environmental Groups Directory 1992. Environmental educators planning formal curricula might seek collaborations with those involved in the Environmental Leadership Summit to provide critical insights into what curriculum revisions might be needed in the future. The Alternative: An Integrated Environmental Agenda

It appears that these misconceptions have created and perpetuate a schism between "traditional" environmental education and those working in environmental education through environmental justice and grassroots environmentalism. To rectify these misconceptions, we need a means of bridging this gap. Ideally, we can create a unified, multidimensional agenda for environmental education that is more likely to meet the needs of all citizens. We suggest four initial steps to bridging this gap.

First, we need to recognize the diversity of environmental issues facing all of our students. This requires environmental educators to seek out information about issues pertinent to their audience (or their potential audience), perhaps focusing on resource quality issues such as air and water quality. Environmental educators also need to recognize more explicitly the social, economic, and political issues interrelated with environmental issues. This will allow educators to present the "big picture," and will help students to see the connections between the environmental issues affecting them most directly and other, interrelated environmental issues. This universality can be maintained if educators stress the connections between environmental quality and quality of life, rather than dichotomizing and prioritizing one over the other.

Second, we need to collect input from a variety of sources to gain a broad perspective on these issues. Studies of environmental education needs and efficacy must include a diverse sample population, representative of current population demographics. If such a sample group cannot be found within large universities, researchers may need to sample groups from historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), the Hispanics Association of Colleges and Universities (HACUs), church groups, or community groups. Future studies must include diverse populations if they are to provide the basis for broadly applicable environmental education programs. In addition, those who are developing environmental education programs must draw ideas not only from fields such as ecology and conservation biology, but from sociology, economics, and urban policy, planning, and development. Third, environmental education needs to recognize the diversity that exists among all environmental educators. Seeking information from those working in fields such as community health, urban planning, or environmental justice will assist formal environmental educators in presenting the connections between various environmental issues and can lead to collaborative programming.

Finally, environmental educators need to guard against tokenism. Asking one or a few members to speak for the group as a whole is an example. Kanter (1977,in McClintock, 1989) described several group dynamics that typically exist when over 85% of a group is homogeneous, leaving less than 15% of the group in "token" roles:

1. The increased visibility of tokens causes them to feel increased performance pressures. 2. Tokens become isolated by "heightened dominant culture boundaries." 3. Tokens can be pressured to fill stereotypical roles of their group. 4. Tokens may respond to the above factors with behaviors that limit their effectiveness in the group, such as withdrawing, denying their culture, and accepting stereotypical roles.

Tokenism is disempowering to the person forced into the role and is not a useful or productive means to improving intergroup dynamics. One person cannot speak for the needs of many, especially for the needs of other racial, ethnic, or cultural groups. An effective discussion of the goals and agenda for environmental education would involve a balanced variety of people from many racial and cultural backgrounds.

Again, these are suggested as initial steps toward bridging the gap between "formal" environmental education and environmental education through environmental justice and grassroots environmentalism, toward heating a multitude of voices when setting the agenda for environmental education. They are presented as "food for thought," and we hope that they will stimulate further discussion about how we can work toward, and ultimately how we have achieved, greater diversity in the field. Evaluating Existing Programs

Along with discussing misconceptions preventing greater diversity in environmental education, we hope to provide practical steps educators can follow to increase diversity within their programs. The following list of questions is designed to be used to evaluate existing programs and curriculum revision workshops as well as in the planning of new programs. It is intended to help educators identify specific steps that can be taken to increase diversity on several levels of program planning and implementation.

In scheduling meetings or curriculum revision workshops:

* Can people get there using public transportation? How do you accommodate people without a car? * Will the meeting conflict with work hours, requiting those concerned to take time off from work to attend? * Is there child care available, such as naturalist-led activities? * Have meetings been rescheduled or postponed, making it difficult for people to plan to attend? * Is the meeting agenda clear so topics can be covered within a minimum amount of time? * Who sets the agenda for the meetings? How is this decided?

Regarding meeting attendance:

* Are those attending heterogeneous in appearance? * Are those attending heterogeneous in economic, social, and political backgrounds? * Are people who might provide a new perspective specifically invited?

Within the meetings:

* Who speaks most frequently? * Who listens most? * Who is asked to give his or her opinion? * Is anyone asked to speak for others who are not present? * When you hear an idea that is different from your own, do you consider the social, economic, and political differences that might make that point valid?

Sources of information: * Where do you seek information upon which curriculum decisions are based? * Do your sources of information include professionals in environmental education? community groups? organizations of people of color? school teachers from a variety of school districts? academics? * Are you familiar with the media directed toward your target audience, including community newspapers, radio stations, TV shows, magazines, and journals? * Are you aware of community groups of people of color in your area? * Do you draw upon information from urban planning and community health? * Do you look at academic journals targeted toward people of color, such as Phylon and Alztan? * Are the subjects of the research used to formulate your agenda diverse in terms of race, economic background, age, and location? Is the information generalizable to your target audience?

If seeking a more diverse audience:

* Do you advertise programs in locations and publications that will reach a diverse audience? * Do your advertisements include pictures of diverse participants and staff? * Do you highlight the relevance of programs to your target audience?

If seeking a more diverse staff:

* Do you advertise positions in locations and publications that will reach a diverse audience? * Do you recognize transferable skills, such as experience in science education or educational administration, or do you close the applicant pool by using exclusive language in the job description (qualifications: minimum of 5 years experience in environmental programming)? * Do you recognize one's ability to reach new audiences as a valid job qualification?

In designing environmental education programs: * Do you present clear information about connections between environmental issues such as urban air pollution, acid rain, marsh habitats, and urban water quality? * Should your programs be bilingual? * Do your visual displays include people of a variety of racial backgrounds? * Do your audio presentations include diverse voices and appropriate dialects? * If your displays include pictures of houses or neighborhoods, do they represent a variety of economic levels?

In summary, environmental education needs to implement an environmental agenda formulated by a diverse coalition of environmental educators, manifested in all areas from curriculum development and program design to face-to-face interactions with students. This will enable environmental education to more effectively reach students from diverse backgrounds. In the face of unmitigated environmental degradation, it is critical that environmental education become inclusive in the audiences it serves and the issues it addresses. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We appreciate the help of the following people in developing this manuscript: Leo McAvoy, Marisela Morena, Laura Russell, John Schultz, John Taborn, Grace Wang, and an anonymous reviewer. NOTES

1. This terminology was changed from "Anglo Americans" to "Whites" to conform to the style of The Journal of Environmental Education.

2. The source for this information was personal interviews with a National Park Service employee and an individual whose ancestors served in the Buffalo Soldiers. These were anonymous interviews conducted within a large study (James, 1993). REFERENCES

Alston, D. A. (Ed.). (1990). We speak for ourselves: Social justice, race, and the environment. Washington, DC: The Panos Institute. Anthony, C. (1990). Why African Americans should be environmentalists. Race, poverty, and the environment, l(1), 5-6.

Atkinson, C. (1990,September/October). A white "green" movement. Public Citizen, pp. 16-20.

Baker, R. (1991). On interdependence. Three Circles Center for Multi- Cultural Environmental Education, 1(1), 6.

Berle, P. (1987). Saving the world. Audubon, 89, 6.

Borden, R. J., & Francis, J. L. (1978). Who cares about ecology? Personality and sex differences in environmental concern. Journal of Personality, 46(1), 190-203.

Borden, R. J., & Schettino, A. P. (1979). Determinants of environmentally responsible behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education, 10(4), 35- 39.

Bryant, P, (1991), Fertile ground between environmentalists and people of color. Other Voices, 1(1), 10-11.

Bryant, B., & Mohai, P. (Eds.). (1991). Environmental racism: Issues and dilemmas. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Office of Minority Affairs.

Bryant, B., & Weahkie, L. (1992). Strategy group workshop: Education and youth. In C, Lee (Ed.), Proceedings of the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit, (pp. 165-170). New York: United Church of Christ Commission on Racial Justice.

Bullard, R. D. (1990a). Dumping in black and white. In D. A. Alston (Ed.),We speak for ourselves: Social justice, race, and the environment, (pp. 4-7). Washington, DC: The Panos Institute.

Bullard, R, D. (1990b). Dumping in Dixie: Race, class, and environmental quality. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Bullard, R. D. (1991,June). Guest commentary: Environmental racism in America? Environmental Protection, pp. 15-16.

Bullard, R. D. (1992). People of color environmental groups directory, 1992. Riverside, CA: Bullard. Bullard, R. D., & Wright, B. (1986). The politics of pollution: Implications for the Black community. Phylon, 47(1), 71-78.

Bullard. R. D., & Wright, B. (1990). The quest for environmental equity: Mobilizing the Black community for social change. Society and Natural Resources. 1(2), 3, 14-17.

Calloway, C. A. (in press). Relating multicultural enviromental education teaching methods to the predominant learning styles of persons of African, Latino/Hispanic, and Native American descent. In K. James & S. Lewis (Eds.), Multicultural environmental education. Troy, OH: North American Association for Environmental Education Monograph.

Caron, J. A. (1989). Environmental perspectives of Blacks: Acceptance of the "new environmental paradigm." The Journal of Environmental Education, 20(3), 21-26.

Day, B., & Knight, K. (1991,January). The rain forest in our backyard. Essence, pp. 75-77, 93+.

Dillon, C. (1992). A demographics quiz. Legacy, 3, 12-13.

Disinger, J. E (1986). Current trends in environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 17(2), 1-3.

Dolin, E. J. (1988). Black Americans' attitudes toward wildlife. The Journal of Environmental Education, 20, 17-21.

Dunlap, R., & Van Liere, K. (1978). The new environmental paradigm. The Journal of Environmental Education, 9(4), 10-19.

Edmonds, E. R. (1991). Message of welcome. National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit program guide (p. 2). Washington, DC: United Church of Christ.

Freudenberg, N., & Steinsapir, C. (1991). Not in our backyards: The grassroots environmental movement. Society and Natural Resources, 4, 235-245.

Gibson, B., & Moriah, D. (1989). Meeting the interpretive needs of minorities. Proceedings of the National Interpreters Workshop (pp. 223- 227). St. Paul: National Association of Interpreters. Gifford, R., Hay, R., & Boros, K. (1983). Individual differences in environmental attitudes. The Journal of Environmental Education, 14(2), 19-23.

Gigliotti, L. M. (1990). Environmental education: What went wrong? What can be done? The Journal of Environmental Education, 22(1), 9-12.

Glasheen, L. C. (1991). Building coalitions for our earth: An interview with Ellie Goodwin. Women of Power, 20, 32-35.

Grant, C. A. (1988). Race, class, gender and schooling. The Education Digest, 54, 15-18.

Grossman, K. (1991). Environmental racism. The Crisis Magazine, 98(4), 14-17, 31-32.

Grossman, K. (1992,May/June). From toxic racism to environmental justice. E Magazine, pp. 28-35.

Ham, S. H., Langseth, R. D., & Fazio, J. R. (1985). Back to definitions in environmental education: The case of inland Northwest camps. The Journal of Environmental Education, 16(4), 11-15.

Hamilton, C. (1990). Women, home and community: The struggle in an urban environment. In I. Diamond & G. F. Orenstein (Eds.), Reweaving the world, the emergence of ecofeminism (pp. 215-222). San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

Hamilton, C. (1991). Industrial racism, the environmental crisis, and the denial of social justice. In B. Bryant & P. Mohai (Eds.), Environmental racism: Issues and dilemmas (pp. 25-31). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Office of Minority Affairs.

Hershey, M. R, & Hill, D. B. (1977,Winter). Is pollution "a white thing"? Racial differences in preadults' attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 41(4), 439-458.

Hines, D. W., & Gifford, R. (1991). Fear appeals, individual differences, and environmental concern. The Journal of Environmental Education, 23(1), 36-41. Hungerford, H., Peyton, R. B., & Wilke, R. J. (1980). Goals for curriculum development in environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 11(3), 42-47.

James, K. (1990). A philosophy for change. In What's past is prologue: Our legacy, our future (pp. 63-65). Charleston, SC: National Interpreters' Workshop Proceedings.

James, K. (1993). A qualitative study of factors influencing racial diversity, in environmental education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota: Minneapolis, MN.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.

Kaplan, L. (1974). A neighborhood discovery program. The Journal of Environmental Education, 5(4), 29-30.

Kay, J. (1991). Women in the movement. Race, poverty, and the environment, 1(4), 1,18.

Kreger, J. (1973). Ecology and Black student opinion. The Journal of Environmental Education, 4, 31.

Lee, C. (1987). Toxic wastes and race in the United States. New York: United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice.

Lewis, S. E. (1993). Analysis of the goals and objectives of environmental education: Recognizing diversity in the field. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.

Lewis, V. (1990,November). Shades of green: Is the environmental movement racist? Sierra Club Yodeler, 1, 3-5.

McClintock, M. (1989). Alone among many: Token dynamics in groups. Journal of Experiential Education, 12(3), 45-46.

Noe, F. P., & Snow, R. (1989/90). Hispanic cultural influence on environmental concern. The Journal of Environmental Education, 21(2), 27-34.

Paterson, K. (1991 ). Will the green teams widen their spectrum? Voces Unidas, I(2), 1, 12-13, 19. Pettus, A. M., & Giles, M. B. (1987). Personality characteristics and environmental attitudes. Population and Environment, 9(3), 127-137.

Russell, D. (1989,Spring). Environmental racism. Amicus, pp. 22-32.

Sanchez, J. (1988,Fall). The environment: Whose movement? California Tomorrow, 11-17.

Sly, C. ( 1991 ). Letter to the editor. Three-Circles Center Newsletter, 2.

Smith, G. (1990,Winter), Freeways, community, and "environmental racism," Earth Island Journal, 42.

Stapp, W. B., Bennett, D., Bryan, W., Fulton, J., MacGregor, J., Nowak, P., Swan, J., Wall, R., & Havlick, S. (1969). The concept of environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 1(1), 30-31.

Thompson, J. C. Jr., & Gasteiger, E. L. (1985). Environmental attitude survey of university students: 1971 vs. 1981. The Journal of Environmental Education, 17(1), 13-23.

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. (1971). Environmental education: Education that cannot wait. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Education.

Van Arsdol, M., Sabagh, G., & Alexander, F. (1963). Reality and the perception of environmental hazards. Journal of Health and Human Behavior, 5, 144-148.

Villarosa, L. (1991,July). Showdown at sunrise. Essence, pp. 55, 61,109- 110, 112.

Washburne, R. F. (1978). Black under-participation in wildland recreation: Alternative explanations. Leisure Sciences, 1, 175-190.

~~~~~~~~

BY SUSAN LEWIS and KATHY JAMES Susan Lewis is an assistant professor of biology at Carroll College in Waukesha, Wisconsin. Kathy James is an assistant professor in the Department of Recreation and Leisure at California State University at Long Beach. ------

Copyright of Journal of Environmental Education is the property of Heldref Publications and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. Source: Journal of Environmental Education, Spring95, Vol. 26 Issue 3, p5, 8p Item: 9507113993

Top of Page Back