Author's note: I apologize for the unusual formatting, this website seems to be made with coding in mind,
rather than publishing essays.
This semester, the Chemistry department has been given the ability to lead one
Wednesday chapel service a month. The series is called “Faith Through Chemistry,”
though many people simply refer to it as chemistry chapel. Chemistry chapel is seen by
many as a good thing, a chance for the chemistry department to talk about real world
issues from a Christian perspective. However, when the professor leading chapel
spreads misinformation, either intentionally or not, there are major negative
consequences, not only because the truth is important in and of itself, but it also
damages Calvin’s mission and academic credibility.This essay will be focusing on the November 7th chapel service as an example.
Professor Vander Griend, who led chapel that day, was discussing energy consumption
and how the United States consumes much more energy, and specifically fossil fuels, per
capita than the rest of the world. He likened the US to a toddler who is larger than all its
peers who has the ability to take things by force, saying “The United States is the chubby
kid at the piñata party. Our country is the one running around, scooping up candy faster
than the other kids, knocking over a few, and basically acting like a big, greedy, three
year old.”(1a)
and how the United States consumes much more energy, and specifically fossil fuels, per
capita than the rest of the world. He likened the US to a toddler who is larger than all its
peers who has the ability to take things by force, saying “The United States is the chubby
kid at the piñata party. Our country is the one running around, scooping up candy faster
than the other kids, knocking over a few, and basically acting like a big, greedy, three
year old.”(1a)
He backed up his words by showing a graph of multiple countries’ per capita fossil fuel
use which showed that the United States’ per capita fossil fuel consumption is over 5
times the global average.(1b) He also said that the United States’ general energy
consumption is over 5 times the global average.
Note: This is a screenshot of the chapel slide as Professor Vander Griend did not give his sources
What Professor Vander Griend failed to mention, however, was how this consumption has
changed over time. This is where the misinformation appears. By showing only a snapshot of a
single point in time, he failed to show each countries’ historical trend, and how this affects the
narrative.
data but also helps form predictions of the future. When doing anything, context is important as
one cannot fully know where they are if they do not have an understanding of where they were.
Context is especially important when analyzing data. A single datum tells very little as it has
nothing to be compared to, but an understanding of its context is what gives a datum value. This
is why a country’s energy consumption trend is important, it shows how the country’s
consumption has changed from year to year so that the information in the above graph can be
properly understood. When seen alone, the above graph seems to show that the United States
is most to blame for the depletion of fossil fuels, but the trends tell a slightly different story.
As this graph shows, the United States, while having the highest per capita consumption by far,
its consumption has been relatively stable and has even slightly reduced its consumption during
the 21st century. “[S]ince the 1970s, energy patterns...have varied. US energy consumption per
capita has declined, while Europe’s energy consumption per capita has tended to remain
relatively flat. China’s energy consumption per capita has greatly increased in recent years.”(2)
Also, according to the 2017 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, “With domestic energy
production (+4.3%) rising faster than consumption (+0.6%), US energy production as a share of
consumption increased to 87.9%. The US became a net natural gas exporter.”(3) Is being a net
exporter, i.e. selling more outside its borders than what it domestically sells, evidence of the
United States acting like “a big, greedy, three year old?”(1a)
An important distinction to be made between the two graphs is that Professor Vander Griend’s
graph refers to fossil fuel usage per capita, not just total energy consumption. However, this
makes his lack of including context even more egregious. While the facts shown in Professor
Vander Griend’s graph are correct, the context of such facts makes his previously quoted
statement so fallacious that one may even call it slander. According to the previously cited BP
Statistical Review of World Energy, CO2 emission “Declines were led by the US (-0.5%). This is
the ninth time in this century that the US has had the largest decline in emissions in the world.
This also was the third consecutive year that emissions in the US declined, though the fall was
the smallest over the last three years. Carbon emissions from energy use from the US are the
lowest since 1992, the year that the UNFCCC came into existence.”(4) What this information is
saying is that for approximately 53 percent of the 21st century, the United States has had the
largest CO2 emission reductions in the world.(5)
With the context of Professor Vander Griend’s information in mind, let us return to the chapel
service. Does a country who is actively decreasing, not only its per capita energy consumption
but also its fossil fuel use, as seen through decreased CO2 emissions, sound like a child who is
“running around, scooping up candy [energy] faster than the other kids, knocking over a few,
and basically acting like a big, greedy, three year old?”(1a) If this statement describes any
countries, it would be China and/or India because “[t]he largest increase in carbon emissions in
2017 came from China (1.6%), a reversal from the past three years when the largest increases
in emissions came from India. China’s emissions in 2017 were 0.3% higher than the previous
peak in 2014. China has had the world’s largest increments in carbon emission every year this
century except in four years – 2000 and between 2014-16. The next highest increment came
from India where emissions rose by 4.4%, though lower than its 10-year average (6% p.a.).
Together, China and India accounted for nearly half of the increase in global carbon emissions”(4)
What makes this especially heinous is that Professor Vander Griend could have adjusted his
chapel talk to not only make it intellectually honest but also more persuasive. Professor Vander
Griend said that “in North America, we are very good at wasting energy. And we must face the
fact that this makes us guilty before God of extreme greed...All of us in this room, and listening
later on even, we are part of the problem collectively.”(1c; 1d)
its consumption has been relatively stable and has even slightly reduced its consumption during
the 21st century. “[S]ince the 1970s, energy patterns...have varied. US energy consumption per
capita has declined, while Europe’s energy consumption per capita has tended to remain
relatively flat. China’s energy consumption per capita has greatly increased in recent years.”(2)
Also, according to the 2017 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, “With domestic energy
production (+4.3%) rising faster than consumption (+0.6%), US energy production as a share of
consumption increased to 87.9%. The US became a net natural gas exporter.”(3) Is being a net
exporter, i.e. selling more outside its borders than what it domestically sells, evidence of the
United States acting like “a big, greedy, three year old?”(1a)
An important distinction to be made between the two graphs is that Professor Vander Griend’s
graph refers to fossil fuel usage per capita, not just total energy consumption. However, this
makes his lack of including context even more egregious. While the facts shown in Professor
Vander Griend’s graph are correct, the context of such facts makes his previously quoted
statement so fallacious that one may even call it slander. According to the previously cited BP
Statistical Review of World Energy, CO2 emission “Declines were led by the US (-0.5%). This is
the ninth time in this century that the US has had the largest decline in emissions in the world.
This also was the third consecutive year that emissions in the US declined, though the fall was
the smallest over the last three years. Carbon emissions from energy use from the US are the
lowest since 1992, the year that the UNFCCC came into existence.”(4) What this information is
saying is that for approximately 53 percent of the 21st century, the United States has had the
largest CO2 emission reductions in the world.(5)
With the context of Professor Vander Griend’s information in mind, let us return to the chapel
service. Does a country who is actively decreasing, not only its per capita energy consumption
but also its fossil fuel use, as seen through decreased CO2 emissions, sound like a child who is
“running around, scooping up candy [energy] faster than the other kids, knocking over a few,
and basically acting like a big, greedy, three year old?”(1a) If this statement describes any
countries, it would be China and/or India because “[t]he largest increase in carbon emissions in
2017 came from China (1.6%), a reversal from the past three years when the largest increases
in emissions came from India. China’s emissions in 2017 were 0.3% higher than the previous
peak in 2014. China has had the world’s largest increments in carbon emission every year this
century except in four years – 2000 and between 2014-16. The next highest increment came
from India where emissions rose by 4.4%, though lower than its 10-year average (6% p.a.).
Together, China and India accounted for nearly half of the increase in global carbon emissions”(4)
What makes this especially heinous is that Professor Vander Griend could have adjusted his
chapel talk to not only make it intellectually honest but also more persuasive. Professor Vander
Griend said that “in North America, we are very good at wasting energy. And we must face the
fact that this makes us guilty before God of extreme greed...All of us in this room, and listening
later on even, we are part of the problem collectively.”(1c; 1d)
If Professor Vander Griend included the context of his data, he could have changed his speech
climax to a rallying cry, rather than a guilt trip. He could have had it be a call to continuation and
improvement of current trends, rather than simply repenting for past and present sins. Instead of
talking down on his audience from his high horse, he could have given the audience a call to
arms, a call to better our energy consumption, both by continuing current trends and making
them trend further down. This would have resulted in a longer lasting change as very few people
make long term changes to their life as a result of guilt.
This leaves one to ponder why Professor Vander Griend chose to do that which he did. The
statistics presented in this essay could be found within ten minutes of researching the topic
which would lead one to think that Professor Vander Griend made a conscious decision to not
include the information. While one would be hesitant to attribute to malice what can be attributed
to ignorance, in this case ignorance is just as heinous of a crime. One would highly doubt that a
professor at this school would accept a paper with such a blatant disregard for describing reality
as it exists today. This leads one to wonder that, since a part of a professor’s role as educator is
being a role model, why this school does not hold its professors to the same, if not a higher,
standard as it holds its students.
The most important question to be asked about this situation is why does this matter? Is there a
reason that this school should care that much about a single chapel service? The remainder of
this essay will be exploring the two reasons why Calvin College should care about such a,
seemingly, small offense, besides the simple argument of intellectual honesty for intellectual
honesty’s sake.
The first reason is that the argument could be made that Professor Vander Griend slandered his
entire audience, which includes every single person who watches the live stream after the fact.
According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, slander is “the utterance of false charges
or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation.”(6) Based off of this
definition, one could make the argument that as a result of his misrepresenting the reality of US
energy and/or fossil fuel consumption to say that the entire United States’ population is “guilty
before God of extreme greed,” Professor Vander Griend slandered his audience.(1c)
This is problematic for Calvin College for two reasons. First, a Christian college would want to
follow 1 Thessalonians 5:22 and avoid even the appearance of evil even more than the average
Christian because, especially in the case of slander, an institution could open itself up for
litigation as a result of even the appearance of evil.(7) It is important to realize that whether or not
Professor Vander Griend actually slandered his audience doesn’t matter. In this instance, the
simple ability to posit the claim that he slandered his audience is enough to seriously damage
not only his reputation but also the school’s reputation and social capital in general. Second, this
also begs the question of what standard Calvin College holds its faculty to; one that is higher or
lower than the standard it holds its students to.
Secondly, and more importantly, this chapel service tarnished Calvin College’s image and
damages its mission. While Calvin College may say that it “is a Christian academic community
dedicated to rigorous intellectual inquiry,” one would be hard pressed to describe Professor
Vander Griend’s chapel talk as rigorous intellectual inquiry.(8) Calvin College’s mission statement
is “Calvin College equips students to think deeply, to act justly, and to live wholeheartedly as
Christ’s agents of renewal in the world.”(8) One wonders how a person can “think deeply” and
“act justly” if they do not understand reality as it is. For those students at chapel who did not
have any real background on this topic, that talk may have dramatically affected their view of the
world. However, as discussed previously, viewing the world in the way described by Professor
Vander Griend might not be the best way to understand reality. One may also think that if Calvin
College was sincere in fulfilling its mission statement, wouldn’t it make sure that all of its public
presentations would be in alignment with said mission statement?
One may respond to these questions by positing that the chapel service as it was helped equip
students to think deeply by making them think through these difficult questions. However, this
idea conflates equipping students with thinking deeply and creating a situation for students to
exercise their already equipped deep thinking.
One may also think that this essay is critical of not only Professor Vander Griend’s chapel talk
but also his conclusions about the topic of energy and the environment in general, which is far
from the truth. This essay is critical of Professor Vander Griend, but because of how he
presented his information, not because of his conclusions. While understanding that the United
States uses much more energy than other countries is important, as is understanding the limits
of fossil fuels, one must be careful to understand reality as it is, which includes historical context.
Saying that we must repent and then try our best to use less energy, as Professor Vander
Griend did during the end of his talk, not only does a poor job of representing reality as it is, but
also sounds hopeless and makes one think there is no way this country can change. However,
this essay would argue that perhaps there is not only a chance, but a good chance that the
United States can do that which Professor Vander Griend called us to do. Therefore, the aim of
this essay was to bring not only hope, but also academic integrity back into this discussion.
climax to a rallying cry, rather than a guilt trip. He could have had it be a call to continuation and
improvement of current trends, rather than simply repenting for past and present sins. Instead of
talking down on his audience from his high horse, he could have given the audience a call to
arms, a call to better our energy consumption, both by continuing current trends and making
them trend further down. This would have resulted in a longer lasting change as very few people
make long term changes to their life as a result of guilt.
This leaves one to ponder why Professor Vander Griend chose to do that which he did. The
statistics presented in this essay could be found within ten minutes of researching the topic
which would lead one to think that Professor Vander Griend made a conscious decision to not
include the information. While one would be hesitant to attribute to malice what can be attributed
to ignorance, in this case ignorance is just as heinous of a crime. One would highly doubt that a
professor at this school would accept a paper with such a blatant disregard for describing reality
as it exists today. This leads one to wonder that, since a part of a professor’s role as educator is
being a role model, why this school does not hold its professors to the same, if not a higher,
standard as it holds its students.
The most important question to be asked about this situation is why does this matter? Is there a
reason that this school should care that much about a single chapel service? The remainder of
this essay will be exploring the two reasons why Calvin College should care about such a,
seemingly, small offense, besides the simple argument of intellectual honesty for intellectual
honesty’s sake.
The first reason is that the argument could be made that Professor Vander Griend slandered his
entire audience, which includes every single person who watches the live stream after the fact.
According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, slander is “the utterance of false charges
or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation.”(6) Based off of this
definition, one could make the argument that as a result of his misrepresenting the reality of US
energy and/or fossil fuel consumption to say that the entire United States’ population is “guilty
before God of extreme greed,” Professor Vander Griend slandered his audience.(1c)
This is problematic for Calvin College for two reasons. First, a Christian college would want to
follow 1 Thessalonians 5:22 and avoid even the appearance of evil even more than the average
Christian because, especially in the case of slander, an institution could open itself up for
litigation as a result of even the appearance of evil.(7) It is important to realize that whether or not
Professor Vander Griend actually slandered his audience doesn’t matter. In this instance, the
simple ability to posit the claim that he slandered his audience is enough to seriously damage
not only his reputation but also the school’s reputation and social capital in general. Second, this
also begs the question of what standard Calvin College holds its faculty to; one that is higher or
lower than the standard it holds its students to.
Secondly, and more importantly, this chapel service tarnished Calvin College’s image and
damages its mission. While Calvin College may say that it “is a Christian academic community
dedicated to rigorous intellectual inquiry,” one would be hard pressed to describe Professor
Vander Griend’s chapel talk as rigorous intellectual inquiry.(8) Calvin College’s mission statement
is “Calvin College equips students to think deeply, to act justly, and to live wholeheartedly as
Christ’s agents of renewal in the world.”(8) One wonders how a person can “think deeply” and
“act justly” if they do not understand reality as it is. For those students at chapel who did not
have any real background on this topic, that talk may have dramatically affected their view of the
world. However, as discussed previously, viewing the world in the way described by Professor
Vander Griend might not be the best way to understand reality. One may also think that if Calvin
College was sincere in fulfilling its mission statement, wouldn’t it make sure that all of its public
presentations would be in alignment with said mission statement?
One may respond to these questions by positing that the chapel service as it was helped equip
students to think deeply by making them think through these difficult questions. However, this
idea conflates equipping students with thinking deeply and creating a situation for students to
exercise their already equipped deep thinking.
One may also think that this essay is critical of not only Professor Vander Griend’s chapel talk
but also his conclusions about the topic of energy and the environment in general, which is far
from the truth. This essay is critical of Professor Vander Griend, but because of how he
presented his information, not because of his conclusions. While understanding that the United
States uses much more energy than other countries is important, as is understanding the limits
of fossil fuels, one must be careful to understand reality as it is, which includes historical context.
Saying that we must repent and then try our best to use less energy, as Professor Vander
Griend did during the end of his talk, not only does a poor job of representing reality as it is, but
also sounds hopeless and makes one think there is no way this country can change. However,
this essay would argue that perhaps there is not only a chance, but a good chance that the
United States can do that which Professor Vander Griend called us to do. Therefore, the aim of
this essay was to bring not only hope, but also academic integrity back into this discussion.
Works Cited
- (timestamp) 10:44-10:57
- (timestamp) 11:08-11:19
- (timestamp) 12:27-13:53
- (timestamp) 18:02-18:08
- “ninth time in this century” is taken to mean 9 out of the 17 years in the 21st century. 9
divided by 17 is 0.5294 which equates to 52.94% or approximately 53% of the century
No comments:
Post a Comment