Fellow Students,
Over the past few days, I have heard a few concerns surrounding the recent implementation on recycling program on campus. As Student Body President and someone who has insight into the overall, year-long process of the planning and implementation of the program, let me address those concerns with the facts behind the new recycling program.
Let me begin by reiterating what two Lumination articles have already addressed –a residence hall-wide recycling initiative has been in the planning and implementation stages since the summer of 2009. I know this because at that time I had recently been elected Vice-President of SGA and joined with the other SGA executive officers in raising the need for recycling on our campus to university administrators.
Over the past 14 months, student government members have sat in on over 15 meetings with administrators, each of which not only explored the need for recycling on campus because of the environmental impact we could make in our community, but also address the various issues surrounding a residence hall recycling program. This wasn’t done blindly. The SGA, the Office of Campus Life and the School of Sustainability partnered together in the fall of 2009 to initiate a research plan of comparable universities to Lipscomb to do the following: discover what types of recycling programs they had on their campus, what led them to their decision on such a program, what student reaction and involvement was to the program, what program would work best on our campus, and how to educate our students on the benefits of recycling.
After a 60-day study of other universities, the two Lipscomb Sustainability graduate students presented three different recommendations to both student and university leaders. Based off those recommendations, the university decided that student involvement was key to the success of a recycling program on our campus; however, at that point, the potential for student involvement seemed wavering and so we decided to postpone any action until we felt student involvement outweighed the costs of a recycling program on campus. What’s more is that a recycling program isn’t effective if students are not utilizing it and continue throwing their trash away. The delay also gave us time to research which company would be best to use and develop ways to educate students about recycling.
Late in the fall of 2009, the SGA saw an increased amount of support from students who were committed to making recycling a success on campus. In Sewell Hall, the RAs were collecting recyclables from their residents and taking them to a local recycling drop-off point. This initiative grew and by the spring of 2010, students from residence halls all across campus were taking their recyclables to Sewell Hall to be taken to the drop-off spot. This prompted the SGA to once again explore the idea of a recycling program on campus. As summer quickly approached, the idea died down because most students and leaders were away from campus over the summer months.
At the beginning of Fall 2010, students came out in full force supporting a recycling program in the residence halls (as mentioned in the articles referenced above). Based on the heightened level of student involvement and commitment to making this program a success, SGA and Campus Life were able to act quickly due to the research and planning ranging all the way back to the summer of 2009.
The facts presented here prove that this was no rash, instant response to some minority group of students on campus. Instead, what it shows is that the university was willing to wait on investing in a much needed program until it felt the student body was ready to participate in such an investment. The desire for recycling on campus was present in both student and university leaders, but their research showed that they had to stifle their desire and wait for the appropriate time to roll out a recycling program.
It has also been said that funding for recycling is coming from the student fees of students who are content to recycle on their own or choose not to recycle. This thought simply isn’t representative of all students on campus. One belief held by students that is often failed to be seen is one that we as student government have heard over and over again from students – that students don’t recycle because they have never been educated on why it is important, because they don’t have the capability to do so in their residence halls, and that if they did have the capability, they would recycle. Furthermore, an overwhelming number of students on our campus have raised the question of why we tout ourselves as a green university, but yet have been the only university in Nashville without the ability for students to be a part of the process of becoming more sustainable.
Some students have presented quite a challenge to SGA since the recycling program’s implementation. One complaint is that student fees shouldn’t fund recycling on campus because the cost does not outweigh the benefit. In contrast, others complain that this initiative does not take enough steps to include students because it does not include bins in the academic buildings or the Bennett Campus Center. Let me address both issues.
Your SGA has funded this program initially to show the university that students are willing to make such an investment a success. If, for some reason, the program isn’t widely used, the agreement between SGA and the university is to discontinue the program. How do we gauge success? The company we are using to collect the recycling is tracking an comparing numbers between the decrease in trash disposal and increase in recycling to gauge the effectiveness of the program. After a year, SGA believes the decrease will be substantial enough to reduce the amount of garbage truck tips from our trash dumpsters and thus allow for the installation of recycling dumpsters at no increase in service cost to the university from our current waste management provider. If cost truly is determined to outweigh the benefit because students are content in not recycling or choose not to, then the program will be discontinued. However, if students prove to be committed to becoming a part of the university’s efforts to become more sustainable through recycling in residence halls, the result will be that the amount of trash the university puts out is reduced significantly, thus allowing a campus-wide recycling plan to be put in place. Simply put, the future of recycling on Lipscomb’s campus – be it to sustain the program, end the program, or expand the program – lies in the hands of Lipscomb students.
It is my hope that the facts presented above will illuminate the recycling program’s purpose, planning, development, and implementation. If you have further questions or concerns, I’d like to invite you to give me a call so we can schedule a time to sit down and discuss the issues at hand. My office number is 615-966-5942. I appreciate your willingness to allow me to serve in this capacity and look forward to the end of this semester and the entirety of next semester to continue serving you as Student Body President.
All the Best,
Jackson Sprayberry