Engineering and Social Justice Synthesis Lectures on Engineers Technology and Society

Engineering and Social Justice

Copyright © 2008 by Morgan & Claypool All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other except for brief quotations in printed reviews, without the prior permission of the publisher. Engineering and Social Justice Donna Riley www.morganclaypool.com ISBN: 9781598296266 paperback ISBN: 9781598296273 ebook DOI: 10.2200/S00117ED1V01Y200805ETS007 A Publication in the Morgan & Claypool Publishers series SYNTHESIS LECTURES ON ENGINEERING, TECHNOLOGY, AND SOCIETY #7 Lecture #7 Series Editor: Caroline Baillie, Queens University Series ISSN ISSN 1933-3633

print

ISSN 1933-3461

electronic

Engineering and Social Justice Donna Riley Smith College

SYNTHESIS LECTURES ON ENGINEERING, TECHNOLOGY, AND SOCIETY #7

iv

ABSTRACT The profession of engineering in the United States has historically served the status quo, feeding an ever-expanding materialistic and militaristic culture, remaining relatively unresponsive to public concerns, and without significant pressure for change from within. This book calls upon engineers to cultivate a passion for social justice and peace and to develop the skill and knowledge set needed to take practical action for change within the profession. Because many engineers do not receive education and training that support the kinds of critical thinking, reflective decision-making, and effective action necessary to achieve social change, engineers concerned with social justice can feel powerless and isolated as they remain complicit. Utilizing techniques from radical pedagogies of liberation and other movements for social justice, this book presents a roadmap for engineers to become empowered and engage one another in a process of learning and action for social justice and peace.

Keywords engineering and social justice, militarism, gender, race, critical pedagogy, liberative pedagogies



Preface “And so you ask, ‘What about the innocent bystanders?’ But we are in a time of revolution. If you are a bystander, you are not innocent.” Abbie Hoffman [1: 183] In recent years, some leaders in the engineering community in the United States and other countries have been seeking to cast engineering as a profession in service to humanity. This characterization is often propelled by “the problem” of an overall dearth of students entering engineering and a specific concern about underrepresentation of women and men of color as well as white women. Some say the problem is one of engineers not commanding enough respect in society or not achieving enough visibility. I believe deeply in engineering’s potential to be a profession in service to humanity and to the planet, yet I cannot help but wonder whether what we have is merely a public relations problem or something deeper. I personally find it difficult to recruit high school students to engineering by holding out dreams of working on humanitarian or even environmental causes, when I know that most students will be working either on military endeavors focused on the facilitation of war or on corporate endeavors focused on increasing profits, often on the backs of poor communities. The profession of law has a field of public interest law, in which the aim is an ideal of social justice, in which the poor are represented as skillfully as the rich, the environment is defended, and rights are extended to those who are not treated justly under current law. The medical profession has its cohort concerned with social justice that establishes clinics to extend access to health care, and public health practitioners make clear the connections between social problems and health problems, advocating fundamental change. How is it that the profession of engineering has not followed suit? Why is it so difficult to find communities of engineers interested in social justice? In writing this book, I have come across many more examples of engineers working for social justice than I imagined existed. Why do we remain so isolated from one another? This book is an attempt both to explain the overall lack of emphasis on social justice in engineering and to build on the work of others to rectify this situation. Engineers cannot afford to be dispassionate bystanders in the face of problems in which we can have a major impact. Our role in

vi  engineering and social justice

achieving military and corporate ends cannot continue to go unquestioned. Neither can we continue to overlook our conspicuous absence in achieving other kinds of social progress. Hampshire College physics professor Herb Bernstein once commented on the irony that so many engineering students worry when they encounter engineering ethics, that their designs might injure someone, without an inkling of recognition that injury may be the very point of many designs they are paid to produce. Engineers may not recognize the biases inherent in our profession: in who benefits and loses from engineering, in who can and cannot do engineering, in what counts and does not count as engineering. All of these choices reveal our collective biases. These choices and biases are masked by ways in which they are considered “mainstream” and rewarded by society. But we must remember there is a big difference between “mainstream” and “value neutral.” Values that are outside of the mainstream are easily labeled as different; however, they represent no less of a bias than the values that are accepted so readily, and thus go unnoticed. Thus, I could say, after Augusto Boal’s foreword to Theatre of the Oppressed [2], that all engineering “is necessarily political” because of the ways in which engineering is embedded in political processes; it is a weapon we must fight for because of the ways those in power wield it as an instrument of control. I could further note, again after Boal, that to claim that engineering is (or should be) objective is to presume a certain political attitude. Those who try to pretend that engineering is somehow objective and try to remove it from the political arena are themselves acting in a political way. Thus, I do not doubt that this book will also be labeled “political.” But it is no less political than the profession of engineering and the practice of engineering education, although the ideas in this book may be less widely accepted in the mainstream. This book offers a critique of the engineering profession and drives at the heart of its biases in worldview and thought as well as practice. This makes the book hard to read in several ways. First, many concepts are drawn from disciplines outside of engineering, thus may seem unfamiliar and challenging. Other disciplines draw on a variety of worldviews and mindsets that the mainstream of the engineering profession does not share and which most engineering educations do not impart to students. Hence, this book may be slow-going in parts and may require the reader to further explore some of the ideas I reference from other authors. Many readers may have not even heard of some of the social theory presented, and some may have heard of it in disparaging ways only. Second, the critique of engineering may come across to some as an attack. This is not my intention in the least. I am an engineer, and I am proud to be one. I believe deeply in the promise of engineering to address problems of social justice, and I seek to build more opportunities for that work. This deep passion for the field and what it can be drives me to write the book and comes through in my critiques. I hope readers will recognize that the critiques are driven by love for the field and my own hopes for a more just and peaceful world. I hope that readers will stick to it and read the entire book with an open mind, even if some of the language I use or the alternative ways of

preface  vii

thinking I present are difficult to understand right away, are off-putting, challenging, or maddening, or cause readers to question their identities as engineers. Feminist theologian Rosemary Radford Ruether wrote, “Consciousness is much more of a collective social product than modern individualism realizes. No one can affirm an idea against the dominant culture unless there is at least a subcultural group that gives people both the ideas and the social support for an alternative position” [3: 184]. I am aware of how much the ideas in this book reflect countless contributions from communities and individuals who have had an impact on the way I think about the world. It begins with my own teachers at Westridge School, particularly Gerald Fallon at Princeton who taught me to think critically. Frank von Hippel first taught me how engineering and social justice might fit together, and Indira Nair at Carnegie Mellon modeled and continues to model a principled career in engineering connected to social justice. A host of coconspirators in my activism over the years (you know who you are) have influenced my thinking about social justice, in general, and its intersection with engineering. I thank Caroline Baillie and George Catalano who have been organizing forums on the topic of engineering and social justice for the past several years and to all the participants who have influenced this work. I thank friends who converse with me on these topics and challenge my thinking, in particular, Alicia Waller, Lisa Armstrong, Vijay Prashad, Alison Newby, Jessica Tucker, Natalie Flores, and Susannah Howe, who contributed some ideas in this book. My deepest thanks to my friends and family for every kind of support, and especially to Phil, a kindred spirit. I thank the library staff at Smith College and the University of Massachusetts for their assistance in locating resources. I thank Alice Pawley, Simone Sandy, and Lillian Wilson for reading and commenting on drafts and for lively conversations on some topics. I thank Caroline Baillie, series editor, and Joel Claypool, publisher, for all their help, hard work, and patience along the way. I thank my colleagues in the Picker Engineering Program and Smith College for giving me the space and support to do this work on the margins of what is conventionally considered engineering. I thank Michele Schaft and Dawn Scaparotti for their support, both personal and professional, which has given me the strength and courage to write this book. This book is based on some materials on work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant 0448240. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

ix

Contents 1. What Do We Mean by Social Justice?....................................................................1 1.1 Some Working Definitions................................................................................... 2 1.2 Streams of Social Justice Thought and Action..................................................... 5 1.2.1 Marxist Traditions: Economic Justice and Beyond................................... 5 1.2.2 Rights Traditions and Their Critics.......................................................... 8 1.2.3 Ecological Justice.................................................................................... 11 1.2.4 Faith Traditions and Social Justice.......................................................... 14 1.2.5 Critical Theories and Social Justice........................................................ 17 1.3 Forms of Dissent................................................................................................ 20 1.3.1 Civil Disobedience (Including But Not Limited to Nonviolent Direct Action)............................................................................... .........21 1.3.2 Legal Protest.......................................................................................... 22 1.3.3 Rule Departures...................................................................................... 22 1.3.4 Conscientious Objection........................................................................ 24 1.3.5 Radical Protest........................................................................................ 24 1.3.6 Revolutionary Action............................................................................. 25 1.4 Conclusion......................................................................................................... 26 References.................................................................................................................... 26 2.

Mindsets in Engineering.................................................................................... 33 2.1 An Engineering Mindset?.................................................................................. 33 2.2 Professional Humor: Drawing on Stereotype..................................................... 34 2.2.1 Joke 1: The Guillotine............................................................................ 35 2.2.2 Joke 2: The Church Steeple.................................................................... 36 2.2.3 Joke 3: You Might Be an Engineer If…................................................. 36 2.2.4 Joke 4: The Golf Course......................................................................... 37 2.2.5 Joke 5: Mechanical vs. Civil.................................................................... 37 2.2.6 Joke 6: ‘I Are an Engineer’...................................................................... 38 2.2.7 Joke 7: Real Engineers…........................................................................ 38 2.2.8 Joke 8: The Glass.................................................................................... 38

  engineering and social justice

2.3 What Do These Jokes Tell Us About Mindsets in Engineering?....................... 38 2.3.1 A Desire to Help . . . and the Persistence to Do It................................. 39 2.3.2 Centrality of Military and Corporate Organizations.............................. 40 2.3.3 Engineers Have a Narrow Technical Focus and Therefore Lack a Number of Other Skills.................................................. ............... .........40 2.3.4 Positivism and the Myth of Objectivity.................................................. 41 2.3.5 Uncritical Acceptance of Authority........................................................ 42 2.4 Conclusion......................................................................................................... 43 References.................................................................................................................... 44 3.

Engineering and Social Injustice......................................................................... 47 3.1 Political Conservatism and Libertarianism......................................................... 47 3.1.1 Countertrends: Engineers on the Left.................................................... 50 3.2 Engineering and Class........................................................................................ 51 3.2.1 Upward Mobility?................................................................................... 52 3.2.2 Professional or Proletariat?..................................................................... 53 3.2.3 Revolutionary Design?............................................................................ 55 3.2.4 Exploitive Management Roles................................................................ 55 3.2.5 One Countertrend: Rethinking the Engineering Design Process.......... 57 3.3 Materialism/Consumerism................................................................................. 58 3.3.1 Green Consumerism.............................................................................. 60 3.4 Militarism........................................................................................................... 62 3.4.1 Research Funding and Federal Policy Making....................................... 68 3.4.2 Military Cultures in Engineering........................................................... 69 3.4.3 Engineering Peace.................................................................................. 71 3.5 Colonialism and Globalization........................................................................... 73 3.5.1 Transportation........................................................................................ 73 3.5.2 Water and Energy.................................................................................. 74 3.5.3 Food Production..................................................................................... 75 3.5.4 Globalization of U.S. Corporate Culture............................................... 76 3.5.5 Global Development Engineering.......................................................... 77 3.6 Racism................................................................................................................ 80 3.6.1 Underrepresentation............................................................................... 80 3.6.2 Curricular and Pedagogical Reform........................................................ 82 3.6.3 Stereotypes............................................................................................. 84 3.6.4 Racist Cultures in Engineering.............................................................. 85 3.6.5 Beyond Underrepresentation.................................................................. 86

contents  xi

3.7 Sexism................................................................................................................ 88 3.7.1 Underrepresentation............................................................................... 89 3.7.2 Sexist Cultures in Engineering............................................................... 90 3.7.3 Workplace Cultures................................................................................ 92 3.7.4 What Counts as Engineering? The Gendering of a Field...................... 93 3.7.5 Sexist Technologies................................................................................. 94 3.8 Homophobia and Heterosexism......................................................................... 95 3.9 Ableism, Assistive Technologies, and Universal Design..................................... 96 3.10 Conclusion......................................................................................................... 96 References.................................................................................................................... 97 4.

Toward a More Socially Just Engineering.......................................................... 107 4.1 How Do We Get There From Here?............................................................... 107 4.2 Praxis................................................................................................................ 108 4.3 Engineering Ethics for Social Justice............................................................... 109 4.3.1 Autonomy............................................................................................. 109 4.3.2 Macroethics.......................................................................................... 110 4.3.3 Morally Deep Ethics............................................................................ 110 4.3.4 Non-Western Perspectives.................................................................... 111 4.3.5 Ethic of Care........................................................................................ 111 4.4 Critical Thinking for Social Justice.................................................................. 112 4.4.1 Epistemic Assumptions and Worldview............................................... 112 4.4.2 Critical Theory, Social Analysis and Social Justice............................... 113 4.4.3 The Role of the Learner Self................................................................ 113 4.4.4 Critical Thinking + Reflective Action = Praxis..................................... 114 4.5 Communication for Social Justice.................................................................... 114 4.6 Collaboration for Social Justice........................................................................ 115 4.7 Organizing for Social Justice............................................................................ 116 4.8 Learning for Social Justice................................................................................ 116 4.8.1 Attitudes Toward Learning.................................................................. 116 4.8.2 Vehicles for Learning........................................................................... 117 4.8.3 Create Your Own Learning–Action Communities.............................. 118 4.8.4 Learning Models and Methods............................................................ 120 4.9 Conclusion....................................................................................................... 121 References.................................................................................................................. 121

5.

Turning Knowledge Into Action: Strategies for Change..................................... 125 5.1 Case Studies for Inspiration and Critique........................................................ 125

xii  engineering and social justice

5.2 Case Study 1. Users Designing for Users: Whirlwind Wheelchair International and PROJIMO..................................... 126 5.3 Case Study 2. Challenging Pharmaceutical Profiteering: One World Health........................................................................................... 127 5.4 Case Study 3. Watch-Dogging the Nuclear Industry: Citizens Groups Take on Vermont Yankee....................................................... 128 5.4.1 Industry Insiders................................................................................... 129 5.4.2 Public Servants..................................................................................... 129 5.4.3 Whistle-Blowers and Advocates........................................................... 129 5.4.4 Concerned Citizens.............................................................................. 130 5.5 Case Study 4. Being a Change Agent: Barbara Waugh and Hewlett Packard....... 131 5.6 Case Study 5. Whistle-Blowing: Bunnatine Greenhouse................................. 132 5.7 Case Study 6. Inside Agitating: Professor Steve Slaby and Student Activism Against Military Research.......... 134 5.8 Case Study 7. Organizing Around Our Expertise: Delhi Science Forum........................................................................................ 135 5.9 Case Study 8. Making a Living While Making a Difference: Jonathan Rose........ 136 5.10 Case Study 9. Democratizing Technology: The International Science Shop Network........................................................ 136 5.11 Case Study 10. Bringing Us the Weekend and Then Some: The Boeing Engineers’ Strike........................................................................... 137 5.12 Conclusion....................................................................................................... 139 References.................................................................................................................. 140 6.

Parting Lessons for the Continuing Struggle..................................................... 143 6.1 Dare to Be Different......................................................................................... 143 6.2 One Joke, Three Stereotypes............................................................................ 144 6.2.1 Lesson 1: You Do Not Have to Solve the Problem. Maybe It Is Not Even a Problem................................ .................. .......144 6.2.2 Lesson 2: Explore Other Ways of Knowing. Seek to Understand the Context.................................. ................. .......145 6.2.3 Lesson 3: Resist Being Co-Opted........................................................ 145 6.3 Valuing Relationships....................................................................................... 147 6.4 Having Fun....................................................................................................... 148 6.5 The Work Ahead.............................................................................................. 149 References.................................................................................................................. 150

Author Biography..................................................................................................... 151



chapter 1

What Do We Mean by Social Justice? “One cannot say, ‘I’m for justice, but any conception of justice anyone comes up with is all right with me.’ ” Martha Nussbaum [4: 47–48] This chapter reviews multiple perspectives in social justice action and thought with the intent of characterizing what we mean by social justice, particularly as it intersects with the teaching and practice of engineering. It is difficult to define the term social justice. It is not that the term is poorly understood; on the contrary, each of us knows what we mean by it. The problem is that the term resists a concise and permanent definition. Its mutability and multiplicity are, in fact, key characteristics of social justice. Consider the reasons why a definition of social justice is difficult to pin down. Martha Nussbaum [4], Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics at the University of Chicago, tells us that our sense of social justice is necessarily normative, i.e., drawing on our sense of what should be and implicitly comparing what should be (social justice) to what is (some reality of injustice). This means that our conception of social justice is contextual and somewhat subjective, influenced by social position and experience [5]. The definition of what is considered socially unjust has its grounding in experience, which is bounded by time, place, and social location. Of course, this is subject to variation across time, place, and individuals. In that sense, the term is both contested and fluid [6]. Social justice is defined by this openness to change. It recognizes that people in every time and place continue the struggle for justice in new contexts. Social justice is not so much a thing to be achieved, as it is a continuing process and an ongoing struggle. Second, our sense of social justice is crafted in community by groups of people. Each of us may define social justice differently, but we use the term collectively and thus it takes on a collective meaning, reflecting a multiplicity of perspectives. This multiplicity of perspectives is part of what social justice is. As conservative commentator Michael Novak [7] points out, social justice is “social”

  Engineering and Social JusticE?

not only in the sense that it benefits groups of people beyond oneself, and indeed society as a whole, but also in the sense that the process of working for justice is social—groups of people organize together to do social justice work, which cannot be accomplished alone. While conservatives have been known to use and co-opt the term as Michael Novak does, people more commonly think of social justice positions as varyingly “liberal,” “progressive,” “leftist,” or “radical.” Because of the ways in which advocates for social justice struggle against the status quo in society, social justice work is inherently political, as is the application of political labels to the work, whether they are used by mainstream society to separate the cause from the mainstream, used derogatorily by opposing forces supporting the status quo, or used as a positive expression of identity by social justice advocates. It is important to note that even as advocates for social justice resist forces of the status quo, we cannot escape them entirely and sometimes, wittingly or unwittingly, we become complicit with these forces or internalize their messages. Our expressions of social justice are therefore imperfect and may contain reproductions or re-inscriptions of social injustices. Recognizing our own place in relation to the work can help us identify our biases and move beyond them. For example, in this book, readers may notice a strong U.S. focus. Because of my citizenship in the United States and education as an engineer here and because of U.S. biases in American media, among other things, the data I use in this book are based mostly on U.S. sources. My efforts to include non-U.S. examples have ultimately not been sufficient to remove the depth of this bias. It is my hope that some of the ideas and examples presented here are nonetheless relevant in non-U.S. contexts and that others with more knowledge of engineering and social justice around the world will contribute to this conversation and provide a more complete story.

1.1

SOME WORKING DEFINITIONS

While a single definition of social justice may be difficult to come by, the reality is that social justice movements rely on their own functional definitions every day in doing their work. Naturally, these vary from group to group and movement to movement and over time, but there are some consistent themes. We therefore look to movements of people struggling for social justice to understand how they approach the concept, what it means to them in their contexts. Social justice movements, through their actions, generate ideas about what should be out of their experiences of injustice. To begin to characterize how social justice activists think about their work, consider the boxed excerpts (page 4) from the Reach and Teach website [8], collected from some contemporary social justice groups active in the San Francisco Bay Area and across the United States (Figure 1.1).

What do we mean by social justice?  

FIGURE 1.1: Medea Benjamin, arrested at Code Pink action at the 2004 Republican National Convention. Accessed March 2, 2008, from http://www.basetree.com/thumbs2/Medea_Benjamin_Arrested_1 .jpg. Photo by Eric Wagner. Used with permission.

The Columbia-Barnard wiki on social justice movements in New York City [9] seeks to categorize organizations by topics, which gives some sense of what this group considers to comprise social justice issues as follows: • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Arts-based activism Community health and environmental justice Economic justice Education Housing/gentrification Immigrant rights Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) and two spirit Police monitoring/community protection Prison crisis Reparations Women and gender Worker’s rights Youth

  Engineering and Social JusticE?

Social justice means complete and genuine equality of all people.—Paul George, Executive Director Peninsula Peace and Justice Center Social justice means moving toward a society where all hungry are fed, all sick are cared for, the environment is treasured, and we treat each other with love and compassion.—Medea Benjamin, Co-founder Global Exchange and Code Pink (Figure 1.1) A long and mysterious historical process in which those who are excluded and exploited by social forces of privilege and power attempt to consociate into movements that struggle for: a more equitable distribution of social and economic goods; for greater personal and political dignity; and for a deeper moral vision of their society. Social justice is a goal toward which we move, always imperfectly, and persons and groups are motivated to realize it by their deepest spiritual and political traditions. Justice is only meaningful when it is historically specific and embodied (as opposed to theoretical or abstract).—Ched Myers, ecumenical activist, Bartimaeus Cooperative Ministries “Social Justice Work” is work that we do in the interest of securing human rights, an equitable distribution of resources, a healthy planet, democracy, and a space for the human spirit to thrive.—Innosanto Nagara, Co-founder DesignAction Collective Social justice means no kids going to bed hungry, no one without shelter or healthcare and a free and lively discussion and participation by all people in the political direction and organization of our communities and nation.—Kirsten Moller, Executive Director and Co-founder, Global Exchange [after a longer definition] . . .  It means that those of us who have privilege must be willing to give up those things that cannot be sustained in a fair world—especially those things that use an unfair percentage of the world’s environmental resources.—Rick Ufford-Chase, International Director, BorderLinks

While such definitions and lists may neither be complete nor definitive, they reflect how people engaged in social justice work view their goals. The theme that cuts across these definitions is the struggle to end different kinds of oppression, to create economic equality, to uphold human rights or dignity, and to restore right relationships among all people and the environment. The Ford Foundation [10] offers the following definition of peace and social justice that represents their vision:

What do we mean by social justice?  

“Peace is a precondition for the full achievement of the foundation’s mission to strengthen democratic values, reduce poverty and injustice, promote international cooperation and advance human achievement. Armed conflict destroys not only human lives but also livelihoods, governments, civil institutions, trust—in short, everything in its wake. Social justice is the aspiration of all healthy societies and the only long-term guarantee for sustaining peace.” Again, this is an imperfect definition that will not represent all perspectives. Some may argue here that the definition of peace is too narrowly focused on the absence of conflict and that it offers alternative definitions that reflect the importance of inner peace and interpersonal relationship or that more strongly emphasize justice as a prerequisite for peace. This demonstrates that those who work for social justice have many different ideas of what social justice and peace are and of how to work for them. It is important to be clear what we mean when we use the term social justice, so that we can better define our goals and make the best decisions we can about how to work together toward common goals.

1.2

STREAMS OF SOCIAL JUSTICE THOUGHT AND ACTION

The set of intellectual and activist traditions that define or develop a concept of social justice are many and varied, and discussing these thoroughly would fill volumes. I speak of intellectual and activist traditions together, following on the Marxist notion of praxis, in which action and theory each inform the other [11]. At the same time, it should be recognized that too often theory is disconnected from action. Despite some activists being intellectuals and vice versa, theory can often be inaccessible to communities that inspired it or might benefit from it. In an effort to connect the two as much as possible, we seek to discuss them together as traditions of theory and action. As part of this work, it is not possible to offer a comprehensive discussion of all streams of social justice thought and action; here, the focus is on streams that have been most influential to social justice work in the United States.

1.2.1 Marxist Traditions: Economic Justice and Beyond Economic inequality and the problem of poverty have been at the heart of social justice struggles. Engineering and social justice expert Caroline Baillie [12], in her book in this series, notes that the industrial revolution was a crystallizing moment for both engineering and social justice. Marx and Engels were able to contribute an understanding of the social transformations taking place during the industrial revolution that give us great insight into struggles for economic justice and economic equality. Industrialization’s new technological developments created social conditions that highlighted the need and capacity for workers to unite to demand better working conditions.

  Engineering and Social JusticE?

Marx and Engels [13] (Figure 1.2) introduced the idea of class struggle as a critical lens for interpreting historical and current events, emphasizing the importance of understanding structural forms of oppression. Their work considers two main classes—the bourgeoisie who are owners of capital and do not work themselves but profit from the work of others (or through trade, real estate, or financial investment) and the proletariat who do not own any resources other than their ability to work and thus must seek employment from a member of the bourgeoisie, entering into a relationship that is inherently exploitative. Their critique focuses on the exploitative relationship between laborer and industrialist, pointing out that Adam Smith and other free market theorists assume incorrectly that exchange of labor and wages is entered into freely. On the contrary, Marx and Engels established the role of power in such exchanges—the laborer is often not free to demand a higher wage because he or she may not have other options. They focused on society as being centered around production and noted that under industrial capitalism workers experience alienation—from the products of their

FIGURE 1.2: Marx-Engels Memorial, Berlin, c. 1991. In the wake of the fall of the Berlin Wall, graffiti artists wrote “Wir sind unschuldig” (we are innocent) at the base. Later, someone sprayed out the “un” so it reads “Wir sind schuldig” (we are guilty). Photograph by Erika Riley.

What do we mean by social justice?  

labor, from themselves, from others, and from nature. This system that exploits and alienates labor sets up inevitable class struggle. Since Marx, many theorists have drawn on his work in order to expand our thinking about classism and economic justice. One key idea is that class embodies not only an economic dimension but also social and cultural dimensions. Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu [14] presents a theory of social stratification based on aesthetics, taste, and cultural preference, arguing that people’s choices (in food, education, culture, or material possessions, for example) reflect and perpetuate social class and their related hierarchies of power. Taste and its categorization as “refined” or “coarse” serves to distinguish one class from another and to secure the superiority of one over another. Bourdieu developed concepts of “social capital” and “cultural capital” (114), which reflect the sum total of an individual’s social connections and cultural upbringing; these provide access to accumulate more social and cultural capital as well as economic capital and economic opportunities, thus reinforcing inequality and class-based hierarchies. This richer understanding of class is essential to address classism in society and is germane to our understanding of class and engineering, which we will explore further in subsequent chapters. Another important way in which Marx’s ideas are employed today is in critiques of global economic inequality. While few critics draw strictly or solely on Marx, preferring more current theories (many of which grew out of Marx and responses to Marx), the influence of his critique of capitalism and theory of social class is evident. For example, David Harvey, a political economist of globalization, considers the origins of global economic inequality in the emergence of neoliberalism on the world stage in the late 1970s and 1980s [15]. Neoliberalism is a fanatical form of capitalism that places ultimate faith in private property, free markets, and free trade, privatizing industries and lifting any government protections on trade, the environment, labor, and social welfare. When critics of neoliberalism identify the exploitation of labor around the world by multinational corporations and observe the widening gap between rich and poor, they echo Marx. Neoliberalism and its critiques lie at the heart of today’s problems of global economic inequality, and engineers concerned with social justice would do well to understand globalization as an economic, political, social, and cultural phenomenon [16]. Beyond his contributions to economic justice issues, Marx has contributed to social justice both in a philosophical and a practical sense. This has had an enormous influence on movements for social justice including struggles for worker’s rights, human rights, antiglobalization movements, antiracism movements, feminist movements, and queer movements. Marx’s idea of praxis has been important for educators and theologians working for social justice, among others. Marx conceived of a new type of activist philosopher when he said: “The philosophers have only interpreted the world in certain ways; the point, however, is to change it”

  Engineering and Social JusticE?

[12: 8]. He encouraged intellectuals to remain embedded in the practicalities of human relationships. Rather than contrast theory with practice, praxis intertwines the two in a relationship of dialogical exchange. Instead of starting with theory, then moving to practice, praxis is rooted in social relationships as the basis for theorizing, always returning to the practical with a view to social transformation. There is constant exchange between theory and practice, between process and product, and between thinking and doing. The thinking and doing are directed toward change that is meaningful to society. Thus, praxis is not just any thoughtful act but an action with the power to change individuals and society. The notion of praxis has been utilized in academic and activist settings (and settings that bridge the two) and has contributed a great deal to the Catholic and critical theory traditions in social justice, as discussed in more detail below.

1.2.2 Rights Traditions and Their Critics As Caroline Baillie [12] notes in an earlier book in this series, many social justice movements draw upon a “rights” framework to further their cause. Rights approaches address what people (and sometimes other entities such as animals) deserve or are entitled to. Rights approaches differ from one another in how they propose to distribute rights equitably. The roots of this framework lie in the work of Enlightenment philosophers like Locke, Rousseau, and Hobbes. Of particular importance today is the influential theory of distributive justice of the late twentieth century philosopher John Rawls [17] (Figure 1.3). He argues that charitable giving cannot achieve social justice and advocates for institutional change to create greater social and economic equality for all. Rawls proposed the difference principle, which dictates that society can only justify forms of economic and social inequality if they also improve the lives of the worst-off, relative to a position in which everyone was given an exactly equal amount of goods and services. Critics point out the difficulties in actualizing this: what would be an equal amount of goods and services, given people’s differences in needs and preferences, and how could society maintain distributive justice over time? Setting aside the detailed policy concerns, the radical theoretical implication is that Rawls denies that the talented are more deserving of wealth and privilege, and rewarding them is only justified if it ultimately benefits the least well-off in society [18]. The profession of social work draws on Rawls in its current ideas about social justice. For example, The Social Work Dictionary [19: 404–405] defines social justice concisely as the “ideal condition in which all members of a society have the same basic rights, security, opportunities, obligations and social benefits.” Some social workers, particularly in the wake of welfare reform in the United States, critique this definition, questioning whether obligations ought to be the same for all individuals in society, and whether these ought to be given in contractual exchange for social benefits [20].

What do we mean by social justice?  

FIGURE 1.3: John Rawls. Accessed August 15, 2007, from http://www.economyprofessor.com/theorists/ johnrawls.php.

Critiquing Rawls along similar lines, Nussbaum [4] notes that the social contract tradition assumes that all individuals in society are equal, ignoring critical moments or life conditions in which a person’s needs are so great, or power imbalances are so big, that the mutuality, freedom, and equality required by the social contract are not present. She offers an alternative conceptualization of social justice that rests on the notion of redistributing “capabilities” [21] rather than Rawls’s primary goods. Where primary goods are tangible commodities, “capabilities” are opportunities (e.g., “the social basis of health, adequate working conditions, the social basis of imagination, and emotional well-being”) [3: 53]. This focus on capabilities is the basis for extending social justice theory to individuals in relationships with greater dependence (e.g., nonhuman animals, children). Others question whether redistributing “capabilities” is sufficient, because these are merely opportunities that may or may not be realized by individuals [22]. On a more practical level, rights arguments have been used by many movements in U.S. history including abolition; women’s suffrage; desegregation and other other civil rights for Chicanos, African Americans, Native Americans, and other minority groups; gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender rights; disability rights; congressional representation for DC residents; and a woman’s right to choose, among others. Most of these movements also include critics that point out the limitations of the rights framework to accomplish the movements’ goals. This amounts to a divergence in theory (see discussions of critical theory and the ethic of care below) in some cases and a divergence in approaches to action (see discussion of forms of dissent below) in other cases. Often,

10  Engineering and Social JusticE?

the struggle is seen as a broader struggle for liberation from oppression not necessarily limited to rights bestowed or withheld by the state. Human rights traditions. After World War II, the United Nations’ (UN) Universal Declaration of Human Rights [23] proclaimed that everyone in the world has a right to personhood, life, liberty, and security; equality before the law; due process; freedom of conscience; and freedom from slavery, torture, and arbitrary arrest or detention. Rights to work and to form unions, to health, education, and social welfare are guaranteed in the declaration. Legal scholar Cass Sunstein [24] and other critics of the rights framework argue that it is based too strongly on liberal individualism, when rights are primarily a social construct. They note that the rights framework precludes or de-emphasizes responsibilities, which they propose as a replacement construct to rights. Such critiques question whether the rights framework can be universalized across cultures. Philosopher of religion Raimon Panikkar [25] took up the question, “Is the notion of human rights a Western concept?,” noting the problematic nature of the question itself due to its implication that if it is indeed Western, it should be rejected as colonialist. Panikkar argues that while human rights is most definitely a Western concept, it should not be renounced, but other traditions ought also to bring forth alternative frameworks that challenge or coincide with human rights frameworks. He argues that this is, in fact, essential to the survival of non-Western cultures throughout the world. To date, both African and Islamic charters of human rights have been written that are similar to, but differ in important ways from, the UN charter. The African Charter on Human and People’s Rights [26] emphasizes duties as well as rights, while the Islamic countries’ Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam [27] retains those rights in the UN charter that can be supported by Islamic law. An ethic of care. Another critique of Rawls and the rights tradition comes from feminist philosopher Nel Noddings [28] and others who promote an ethic of care as an alternative to what they see as a more masculinist concept of rights or justice. This critique comes originally from psychologist Carol Gilligan’s observation [29] that men tended to speak about ethical questions in terms of rights language, while women spoke more relationally, out of concern or sympathy for others. Ecofeminist philosopher Karen Warren [30] identifies six problems with the rights framework that advocates of the ethic of care commonly raise, namely, it focuses on individuals rather than relationships among individuals; it limits morality as being about rights or rules; it sees resolution hierarchically and as having winners and losers; it does not leave room for emotion and values of care in decision-making; it oversimplifies morality; and it reinforces existing power relations by not calling them out. There is a strong essentialist association between women and caring based upon the origins of this ethic. Feminist critics (e.g., Sandra Bartky [31]) problematize the notion of women’s care for

What do we mean by social justice?  11

men as reinscribing gender roles and unequal power dynamics. To counter this, philosophers such as Noddings [28] are careful to locate care in both men and women, and feminist philosopher Joan Tronto [32] locates care in the experience of the oppressed. It can be difficult to envision how an ethic of care might play out as a replacement to a rightsbased framework for justice, perhaps because so much of our history and interactions are based in that framework or perhaps because this ethic is still new and not fully developed. Particularly problematic is how to enforce the ethic of care; that is, how does society deal with uncaring individuals? How, in particular, can those not cared for or not cared about create change on their own behalf ? Proponents of the ethic of care look to methods of engagement such as conflict resolution techniques, but it remains unclear how this might bring about justice. Karen Warren [30] has developed a “care-sensitive” approach to ethics that requires three conditions: (1) it recognizes caring for self and others; (2) it invokes “situated universals”—that is, it draws on ethical principles in context; and (3) it enhances (or does not detract from) the health or well-being of involved parties. The ethic of care serves as an important reminder to those who work for social justice everywhere to remember to approach our work from the heart and not from a detached intellectual perspective. This work serves to highlight the importance of relationships, for example, the importance of interpersonal and intrapersonal work one must do to struggle against prejudice.

1.2.3 Ecological Justice Nussbaum [4] and others note that theories of justice based on the work of Rawls and others do not necessarily account for nonhuman entities. (Notably, however, Christopher Stone [33] argued for extending rights to nature in the classic book Should Trees Have Standing.) Thus, a different tradition has emerged to address issues of ecological justice. Some may include ecological justice in their conception of social justice, while others might consider it outside the scope of social justice. While previous work associated with movements such as American transcendentalism has dealt with humans’ relationships to nature [34,35], a body of work dealing directly with the ecological problems of our time has emerged since the 1960s, set off by Rachel Carson’s work Silent Spring [36] (Figure 1.4) and inspired by Aldo Leopold’s call for an evolving land ethic [37]. Key ideas included ecologist Garrett Hardin’s [38] discussion of the tragedy of the commons, entomologist Paul Ehrlich’s [39] treatise on population growth, and medieval science historian Lynn White’s [40] critique of Western views of technology and the anthropocentrism of the Christian worldview. Deep ecology. Deep ecologists distinguished themselves from “shallow” ecologists by critiquing their sole focus on conservation, environmental regulation of industry without fundamentally altering industrial activity, and anthropocentric relations with nature [41]. Deep ecologists intrinsically value nonhuman species and biodiversity and view humans as one of many species in nature,

12  Engineering and Social JusticE?

FIGURE 1.4: Rachel Carson. Accessed March 2, 2008, from http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/ historymakers/carson/rachel_carson650.html.

no more valued than nonhuman species. The work of chemist James Lovelock and biologist Lynn Margulis on the Gaia hypothesis [42], which views the earth holistically as a single interconnected biogeochemical entity, can be seen as part of deep ecology. Social ecology. Murray Bookchin [43] and other social ecologists critique deep ecology because it does not consider economic, social, and political factors that play a fundamental role in creating environmental problems. In the Marxist tradition of social justice, they look for root causes in societal structure, governance, class struggle, and other power dynamics. Within the green party in the United States, there have been historical debates between deep ecologists and social ecologists reflecting this divide. According to Bookchin, “Deep Ecology, despite all its social rhetoric, has virtually no real sense that our ecological problems have their ultimate roots in society and in social problems. It preaches a gospel of a kind of original sin that accurses a vague species called humanity, as though people of color are equatable with whites, women with men, the Third World with the First, the poor with the rich, and the exploited with the exploiters” [44: 236]. Ecofeminism. Like social ecologists, ecofeminists focus on power relationships; in the words of Karen Warren [30: xiv] (Figure 1.5), they seek to call out “the interconnections, at least in Western societies, between the unjustified domination of women and ‘other human Others,’ on the one hand, and the unjustified domination of nonhuman nature, on the other hand.” The work of Vandana Shiva [45] on the impact of development on women and ecology in India is one example of how ecofeminists make these connections. Ecofeminists have explored these connections in multiple contexts and academic disciplines and from multiple perspectives within feminism. While the approach is conventionally critiqued for being essentialist (i.e., for reinscribing sexist ideas about

What do we mean by social justice?  13

FIGURE 1.5: Karen Warren. Accessed September 5, 2007, from http://www.macalester.edu/~warren/.

gender by identifying women as intrinsically linked to nature), it is important to recognize that many ecofeminist philosophers critique essentialism in ecofeminism and seek to shape a philosophy which is not essentialist [30]. Animal rights. Working against Western tradition in philosophy that afforded no rights to animals, Peter Singer and others began in the 1970s to establish philosophical arguments supporting the ethical treatment of animals. This work kicked off the animal liberation movement. Singer’s work uses utilitarian arguments for treating speciesism as a prejudice like sexism or racism; accordingly, nonhuman animals should not be exploited in factory farms or scientific experimentation, or as part of the human diet. Tom Regan took a different approach, extending the rights-based tradition to apply to nonhuman animals [46]. Carol Adams, Josephine Donovan, and other feminists have drawn on critical theory and ecofeminist theory in developing approaches to animal liberation based in an ethic of care that go beyond utilitarian and rights-based thinking [e.g., 47]. Environmental justice. In the 1980s, as communities began to organize around toxic waste discovered in their neighborhoods, activists began to notice a trend in which communities of color seemed to be bearing more than their share of hazardous waste, air pollution, water pollution, and other environmental hazards. In 1987, the United Church of Christ [48] released a groundbreaking report on socioeconomic factors in the citing of hazardous waste facilities, providing statistical data that proved that race was a dominant factor in citing facilities, even controlling for socioeconomic class. The movement has broadened to include concerns around global distribution of environmental harm as well, as developing countries at times have been recipients of toxic waste exports from developed countries (e.g., [49]). The environmental justice movement has been applying Rawlsian ideas of distributive justice to the problem of disproportionate environmental harm borne by poor communities and communities of color. They argue for a more equitable distribution of the risks generated by industrial activity,

14  Engineering and Social JusticE?

FIGURE 1.6: Hazel Johnson founded People for Community Recovery on Chicago’s South Side in 1982 (www.ejrc.cau.edu/(s)heros.html). Accessed February 26, 2008, from www.ejrc.cau.edu/images/ hazeljohn.gif.

as well as for more transparent governmental processes with meaningful community involvement for addressing local environmental problems (Figure 1.6). Some critique this approach from a deep ecology perspective as being too anthropocentric; others argue for broadening the approach to include nondistributive justice considerations and an ethic of care [30]. Integrating several of these strands, two books in this series written by engineering and social justice scholar George Catalano [50,51] address ideas about ecological justice. Catalano [50] proposes implementing a “morally deep” ecological ethic in engineering, which brings into moral considerations all of earth’s beings. Then Catalano [51] proposes considering poverty and the planet together in engineering, so that economic justice and environmental justice are integrated.

1.2.4 Faith Traditions and Social Justice Faith traditions have a complicated relationship with social justice. Both social justice movements and those who would resist social change draw on faith traditions to justify their perspective. Religious institutions often find themselves the subject of struggles for social justice as adherents seek to change religious doctrine or policy. And, of course, many advocates for social justice neither draw upon nor are influenced by any faith tradition. At the same time, faith traditions have had a significant role to play in shaping both the intellectual and activist aspects of social justice throughout history. In fact, the origin of the phrase “social justice” is attributed to Luigi Taparelli D’Azeglio (Figure 1.7), a nineteenth century Sicilian Jesuit priest [7]. Many faith traditions contain teachings that support and inspire social action although the phrase “social justice” may not be part of certain traditions. For example, Islamic values include freedom of conscience, economic and racial

What do we mean by social justice?  15

FIGURE 1.7: Luigi Taparelli D’Azeglio coined the phrase social justice. Accessed February 26, 2008, from http://www.consciencia.org/bancodeimagens/albums/userpics/10001/thumb_Azeglio.jpg.

equality, and social interdependence [52]. In Hinduism, the writings of Vivekananda (Figure 1.8) strengthened the Vedanta idea that none of us are free until all of us are free [53], influencing India’s movement for independence and leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi and later Martin Luther King. Buddhism’s principle of selflessness has been applied in contexts of social action [54]; in African religions, values of community, cooperation, and mutual aid have informed social justice and human rights movements [55]. In Judaism, there is a rich social justice tradition that begins with the struggle for freedom from slavery in Egypt and continues in our time and place addressing civil rights, worker’s rights, genocide in Darfur, and peace, including approaching peace in the Palestinian– Israeli conflict [56]. Quaker testimonies of peace, integrity, simplicity, and equality have served as

FIGURE 1.8: Swami Vivekananda influenced Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Accessed March 2, 2008, from www.adrianpiper.com/yoga/.

16  Engineering and Social JusticE?

a basis for Quaker social action. Several protestant traditions draw on the sayings and example of Jesus to lift up the hungry and poor; they work to make peace and free the oppressed. Mainline protestant religions have traditions of working against the practice of slavery, against poverty and exploitation of workers in the nineteenth century, for civil rights, and against the death penalty in the twentieth century (e.g., [57,58]). Thomas Aquinas developed the concept of the “common good” based upon Christian theology combined with Aristotelian ideas of people as social beings that benefit from sharing community concerns and goals, rather than existing merely as individuals [18]. Aquinas’s ideas were developed in the nineteenth century under Pope Leo XIII into a Catholic tradition of social justice, based on the Church’s response to industrialization, its concern for worker’s rights, and the dignity of the poor. These ideas were developed further in the United States through Catholic immigrants involved in union organizing and, in the second half of the twentieth century, by Latin American theologians, such as Gustavo Gutiérrez [59] and Leonardo Boff [60], who combined ideas from Karl Marx (class struggle, praxis) and Catholic Social Thought (worker’s rights, the dignity of the poor) in a theology that related political empowerment and theological salvation. In turn, the ideas of liberation in Latin America influenced a new generation of religious and secular scholars in the United States working on specific social justice movements including the struggles against U.S. aggression in Latin America [61]. The role of the Black Church in the civil rights Movement and beyond has been well studied (e.g., [62, 63]). Religion played multiple roles including being a source of personal strength and inspiration, providing a critical organizational network and supportive community for activists, and providing a moral high ground on which to build persuasive arguments. Black liberation theology grew from the experience of the civil rights movement combined with the influence of Latin American liberation theologians. For example, James Cone [64] developed a systematic Black theology, Allan Boesak [65] connected theologies of liberation to the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, and Cornell West [66] built on liberation theology to create an approach to AfroAmerican critical thought, all of which have, in turn, informed and inspired further action. Womanist theology, addressed further below, emerged as feminists of color sought to address social justice, acknowledging the complexities of intersecting oppressions based on gender, race, class, and other identities. True to our understanding of the dynamics of social justice, these faith-based social justice traditions include adherents who critique each of these traditions in light of current social justice issues [e.g., Catholics for Choice (http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/) or the Welcoming Church Movement (http://www.welcomingresources.org/)]. No tradition has a complete and unchanging belief system that can lay out values for social justice for all believers in all times and places, but many believers draw on a rich tradition to support social action (including changing unjust practices of their

What do we mean by social justice?  17

own religious institutions) from different faith perspectives. Because the Right Wing in the United States has deliberately co-opted religious language and organizations to achieve an antidemocratic agenda [67], people of faith who stand for social justice have found it even more important to provide faith-based arguments that counterweigh those from the opposition.

1.2.5 Critical Theories and Social Justice Following in the Marxist tradition and drawing on Kant’s critical approach to knowledge—accepting only that which has been thoroughly questioned—the Frankfurt School of critical theorists developed a philosophical tradition directly concerned with the liberation of people from oppression [68]. Because it is interested not only with pointing out what is wrong with the world but also with identifying strategies for change, the field is necessarily interdisciplinary, combining philosophy with a variety of disciplines in the social sciences. Feminist and critical race theories both draw on philosophers from the Frankfurt School and develop their own kinds of critical theories in the sense that they are concerned with combining philosophy and social science to address social justice. Feminist theory. The feminist philosophical tradition predates the advent of critical theory and thus retains elements of multiple philosophical traditions. Feminist theory is commonly classified according to these traditions, with psychoanalytic feminists drawing on Freud, Marxist feminists drawing on Marx, poststructuralist feminists drawing on critical theory, liberal feminists following in the Western rights framework, existentialist feminists drawing on Sartre, etc. [69,70]. Rosemarie Tong [70] notes that this categorization is itself problematic, because it rests on male philosophical traditions; however, she also recognizes its usefulness in describing the diversity of perspectives within feminism. A summary of Tong’s and Donovan’s perspectives on feminist traditions follows [69,70]. Liberal feminism is what most of the uninitiated think of when they hear the word feminism—a focus on legal rights that dates back to enlightenment thinking. It includes the arguments of Mary Wollstonecraft, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony seeking women’s suffrage. Later in the twentieth century, Betty Friedan founded the National Organization for Women in the liberal feminist tradition, and other women’s rights groups followed. Equality under the law and the extension of equal opportunity is emphasized. Radical feminists contrasted women’s rights with women’s liberation. Radical feminists focus centrally on the patriarchy, believing that this is the root cause of women’s experience of oppression. The focus of radical feminist authors (e.g., Kate Millett [71], Mary Daly [72], Andrea Dworkin [73], and Adrienne Rich [74]) tends toward sexual and reproductive relationships including motherhood, pornography, intercourse, etc. Marxist and socialist feminists, on the other hand, identify underlying social, political, and economic structures as the root of women’s oppression, with Marxist feminists such as Alison Jaggar [75] and Iris Young [76] focusing primarily on classism. Psychoanalytic feminists look to psychological explanations for gendered behavior, rooted in early childhood experiences. Despite

18  Engineering and Social JusticE?

Freud being a problematic figure for feminists, psychoanalytic feminists both react against and build upon his work. Postmodern feminists resist identifying one specific reason for women’s oppression and are wary of applying labels because of their concern for the power of language. They draw both on Simone DeBeuvoir’s idea of woman as other [77] and on deconstructionists like Jacques Derrida and Jacques Lacan who oppose Western dualities. Judith Butler [78] describes gender, sex, and sexuality as being constructed through performative acts, enforced by society. Multicultural feminists, such as bell hooks [79] and Patricia Hill Collins [80], critique liberal feminism as racist, classist, and heterosexist, examining how other social locations such as class, race, age, geography, and ability affect each woman’s experience of oppression. This intersectionality of oppression recognizes that women embody multiple identities that can create layers of different forms of oppression in women’s lives. To illustrate these varied feminist positions, let us consider what a “feminist” response to Larry Summers’s 2005 remarks about women in science and engineering might be. Summers attributed women’s underrepresentation to “intrinsic aptitude” and “legitimate family desires” that make women unwilling to work 80 hours per week (Figure 1.9). He dismissed socialization in favor of genetics and dismissed discrimination as a factor in underrepresentation in academia, arguing that if it were a factor, some university would gain a competitive advantage by not discriminating and hiring qualified women [81]. One can find responses that draw on psychological understandings of gender discrimination, responses that question the underlying labor structures that call for 80-hour work weeks, responses that challenge the way women are treated differently from men, and responses that valorize (however, tongue-in-cheek) women’s stereotypical qualities. Critical race theory. Critical Race Theory grew out of the struggles of activists, lawyers, and academics following the advances of the 1960s civil rights movement. It draws on activist traditions in the Black Power, Chicano and civil rights movements, on critical theory, feminist theory, and postmodern theory, and the work of scholars and activists like W.E.B. DuBois, Cesar Chavez, and Martin Luther King. Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic [82] lay out the key ideas of critical race theory as follows: •

•

Ordinariness of racism—Racism is not viewed as aberrational, but as an integral part of our social, political, and economic system, from which many benefit. As a result, racism is very difficult to eradicate. Liberal ideas that afford equality under the law or equality of opportunity can only go so far, addressing only more obvious forms of racism, leaving subtler forms intact. “Interest convergence” or “material determinism”—Because racism benefits so many in society in material or psychological terms, one must reexamine history in this light, recon-

FIGURE 1.9: Some feminist responses to Larry Summers’s comments. Can you identify the feminist tradition(s) on which each writer draws?

What do we mean by social justice?  19

20  Engineering and Social JusticE?

•

sidering who benefited and who lost from landmark events. For example, Bell suggested that the Brown vs. Board of Education victory occurred in 1954 due to a convergence of economic and political circumstances that made clear the benefits of the decision for white elites—specifically, the United States could not afford to look bad in the world press. Freeman [83] and others are critical of the step-by-step progress of liberal approaches, noting that the slowness of progress serves the interests of those in power. Social construction and intersectionality—Race and racism are not grounded biology but constructed by society, representing products of social relations in a particular time and place. Similarly, identity is not fixed along one category such as race or gender; multiple factors, including race, religion, gender, sexuality, class, age, etc., all contribute to a person’s identity and experience of the world. That said, there is a uniqueness to the experiences of people of color because they represent a voice that white people need to hear and cannot know based on their experience of whiteness.

Some social justice thinkers interweave multiple strands of theory and practice. O’Brien [84] argues that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) represents a “subversive” departure from the rights/equality framework into one that reflects both Marxist critiques of capitalism and an ethic of care. First, because ADA requires companies to consider workers’ needs individually, it represents a radical departure from the alienation of capitalism and can create an “ethic of care” that employers must respect. Her idea of care, grounded in critical theory, departs both from a justice-framework sense of equal treatment and from an ethic of care that creates dependence upon the kindness of others. Independence and dependence are balanced, as needs are recognized and personhood is respected. She argues that with this conception of care, “difference can be transformed into resistance” (71) in the location of the workplace. If we recognize that we are all “temporarily able-bodied” (1), the applicability of the ADA to large numbers of workers holds great promise for radical transformation of the workplace.

1.3 FORMS OF DISSENT Because social justice defines itself against the status quo, articulating what should be against what is in order to effect change, dissent—and the many approaches to expressing and theorizing dissent—is a fundamental aspect of social justice. Of course, dissent is not the only form of social justice action, but it is a central characteristic with depth and breadth that merits some further discussion. Kimberley Brownlee [85] discusses this rich variety of activist traditions of dissent. The discussion below summarizes her categorization and distinctions among different types of dissent used in social justice movements, and their underlying philosophies.

What do we mean by social justice?  21

1.3.1 Civil Disobedience (Including But Not Limited to Nonviolent Direct Action) Thoreau’s essay on civil disobedience [86] focused on his decision to refuse to pay taxes used in part to sustain the institution of slavery, although it meant serving jail time. Brownlee cites the Boston Tea Party, the movement for women’s suffrage, the movement for Indian independence, the U.S. civil rights movement, the movement against the Vietnam War, and the movement against apartheid in South Africa as effective uses of civil disobedience that created historical change. Direct civil disobedience occurs when actors break the very law they view as unjust such as direct violations of Jim Crow laws in the south. Indirect civil disobedience includes actions that break laws in order to demonstrate opposition to another law, for example, peace protestors crossing the boundary of the School of the Americas in Georgia (Figure 1.10). Brownlee notes that key features common to these movements are: • •

Conscientiousness—a principled basis for action; Communication—a clear condemnation of unjust laws and a desire to change those laws. Some interpret “laws” to include private policies such as those of corporations or universities.

FIGURE 1.10: Elizabeth Bradley arrested for civil disobedience at the School of the Americas, Fort Benning, Georgia, November 2003. Accessed February 29, 2008, from http://www.soaw.org/img/original/ Elizabeth%20Bradley.jpg.

22  Engineering and Social JusticE?

Additionally Brownlee notes that nonviolent direct action has the following qualities: •

•

•

Publicity—Typically, it is necessary for the act of civil disobedience to be conducted with full knowledge of the authorities, with advance notice. Openness is seen by some as an essential aspect of acting in good faith in relation to the authorities. Nonviolence—Nonviolent direct action, such as that used in Indian independence or in the U.S. civil rights movement, is seen, by some, as an essential element in civil disobedience. The common rationales for this are that violence can obscure the message protestors seek to communicate and can be counterproductive; it can give the authorities an excuse to use violence in return; and it can hurt strategic relationships with allied groups. Fidelity to law—There is an understanding that by breaking the law, one is still subject to the law and may be punished accordingly.

Brownlee suggests that civil disobedience refers to a broader set of actions than nonviolent direct action alone. Specifically, publicity may be omitted in cases where advance notice to authorities can result in a thwarted action. Certain acts of violence (e.g., vandalism) may be considered acceptable when it heightens the communication of the message and when the harm done is considered less than or similar to harm produced by some nonviolent acts. Fidelity to law is also not upheld when actions become covert or when violence is used.

1.3.2 Legal Protest Legal protest has a great deal in common with civil disobedience, in that it stems from principle and a desire to communicate injustice to people in order to create change. The key difference is that civil disobedience involves breaking a law, and legal protest does not. Brownlee notes that sometimes legal protest is not enough to capture the attention of the media and thus accomplish the communication goals of the protestors. Legal protest is not limited to marches and strikes and may also include strategies such as fasting, whistle-blowing, muckraking, and boycotting. For example, consider consumer activist Ralph Nader’s Unsafe at Any Speed [87] which galvanized auto consumer protection advocates; the Mother Jones exposé [88] on the cold calculations about the value of the life of a Pinto driver; and the combined marching, striking, fasting, and boycotting involved in the United Farm Worker’s struggle [89]. Figure 1.11 shows some buttons from marches on Washington, a common form of legal protest.

1.3.3 Rule Departures When authorities use their power to correct for an unjust law, it is considered a rule departure. For example, when needle exchange is considered “low enforcement priority” so that activists who pass

What do we mean by social justice?  23

FIGURE 1.11: Buttons from Marches on Washington: (top, left to right): (a) Students for a Democratic Society march against the Vietnam War, 1965. Accessed February 29, 2008, from http://www .mindyourbusiness.com/VN1/dup1/SDS_MarchDC_April17-65.jpg. (b) The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, 1963, at which Dr. Martin Luther King gave his “I have a dream” speech. Accessed February 29, 2008, from http://www.smithsonianlegacies.si.edu/photos/227.jpg. (c) The 2004 March for Women’s Lives supporting reproductive rights. Accessed February 29, 2008, from http://www.jofreeman.com/photos/MFWL/marchbutton.jpg. (d) The 1894 Coxey’s Army march for economic justice. Accessed February 29, 2008, from http://www.ssa.gov/history/pics/coxeycoin.jpg. (e) The 1993 march for lesbian, gay, and bisexual rights (photograph by author). (f ) The 2005 march against the Iraq War. Accessed February 29, 2008, from http://www.toppun.com/Pictures/March-onWashington.gif.

out clean needles and users who frequent needle exchanges are not punished by drug paraphernalia laws, this is a rule departure. The relationship to civil disobedience is clear, in that the act communicates dissent and is, in fact, often used to communicate support to those engaged in civil disobedience. Rule departure, however, is not civil disobedience because it does not necessarily violate a law and typically does not make the actor subject to punishment. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s decision to order the county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in February and March 2004 can be seen as a rule departure. While the marriages were not ultimately considered

24  Engineering and Social JusticE?

valid by the State of California and Newsom was found to have overstepped his authority, he was acting at the time on his conscience and his reading of the equal protection clause of California’s constitution [90], setting the stage for further action in the struggle for marriage equality in the state.

1.3.4 Conscientious Objection When a person believes that complying with a law would violate a person’s conscience (based in moral or religious belief ), then an action violating the law is considered conscientious objection. Conscientious objection is not typically motivated by a desire to communicate the objection publicly and does not necessarily violate a law (especially when there are exemptions for conscientious objection, for example, in military service) [91]. However, when communication is an aim and when laws are broken, conscientious objection can also be considered civil disobedience.

1.3.5 Radical Protest When a protestor is acting in opposition to an entire regime, or when change is considered more urgent, tactics, including but not limited to forcible resistance, may be used. Brownlee points out that the strategies for communication may not be intended to win over the general populace. Often, protestors using these tactics do not wish to be caught and punished for violating the law and actively seek to avoid arrest. Often, radical direct action is not intended to inflict bodily injury but involves petty vandalism or trespassing with a sense of humor. For example, the Lesbian Avengers unleashed a “plague of locusts (crickets)” at the offices of the ex-gay ministry Exodus in 1995 [92]. Earth First!’s first action was the “cracking?” of Glen Canyon Dam, unfurling a huge plastic “crack” banner over its side in 1981 [93]. The underground railroad [94] and Nazi resistance [95] are two more examples of radical direct action that involved illegal activity, sometimes violent. Radical abolitionists like John Brown advocated the use of violence to end slavery; they employed it with some success in the events of “Bleeding Kansas” (in which the raid on the arsenal there resulted in Kansas becoming a free state) and later at Harper’s Ferry [96]. As Frederick Douglas wrote in defense of radical protest: “If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” [97: 22].

What do we mean by social justice?  25

Sometimes violence is taken up as a strategy only after other options fail; sometimes violence ensues only because groups are given no other choice by those in power. Smith and Warrior [98] recount radical direct actions of the early American Indian Movement (AIM), which were highly symbolic, involving trespassing and petty vandalism, intended to make a point without violence. These actions included: • •

• •

the takeover of Alcatraz Island to draw attention to the economic injustice and political oppression of the reservation system; takeovers of Mount Rushmore to call attention to the offensiveness inherent in the taking of Native American land, considered sacred by the Lakota Sioux, to build a monument to presidents involved in colonial wars against Native peoples, the takeover of the Mayflower replica in Plymouth on Thanksgiving to call attention to the violence against Native Americans that is hidden in many accounts of U.S. history; and the “Trail of Broken Treaties” march/caravan on the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in Washington and the takeover of the BIA to highlight the injustices of U.S. policy and action (often in violation of stated policy) toward tribal governments

Later, in another symbolic occupation, this time at Wounded Knee, the AIM would take up weapons in order to defend against a heavily armed government siege. Here, forcible resistance was used not as an extension of ideology but as a necessary reaction to the force presented by the U.S. government (Figure 1.12).

FIGURE 1.12: Emma Goldman. Accessed May 22, 2008 from http://www.voltairine.org/Goldman.JPG.

26  Engineering and Social JusticE?

1.3.6 Revolutionary Action Employing tactics of civil disobedience and/or radical protest, revolutionary action occurs under an umbrella of overarching objectives and a broader vision for change (Figure 1.13). Brownlee notes that unlike civil disobedience, the goal is not usually to convince an existing regime to change its laws. The failed raid at Harper’s Ferry, for example, is often considered a revolutionary act because of its place in a larger abolitionist movement and because of its role in precipitating the Civil War and ultimately the end of slavery in the United States. More recently, the “battle for Seattle” and other actions against globalization represent acts of civil disobedience and radical protest (as well as legal protest) with a broad overarching goal [99]. It should be noted that the legal regime in which one operates can change the classification of certain actions. For example, striking is an action taken throughout history across many different contexts, legal and illegal. Vernus [100] discusses accounts of strikes in twelfth century B.C.E. Egypt, the earliest known strikes in the written record. More commonly, we think of strikes as actions taken by industrial labor forces from the nineteenth century until today. Striking may be legal or illegal, depending on local laws and actions used by workers. In that sense, strikes may at different times fall under civil disobedience, legal protest, radical protest, or revolutionary action. Whistle-blowing similarly falls into a gray area of categorization, but is an important venue for dissent for many engineers and other employees. Whistle-blowing occurs when an employee makes public information documenting improper behavior of one’s employer—often, this behavior is illegal, or it may be legal but considered unethical because it produces threats to public safety, health, or welfare, or it violates the public trust. When undertaken by government officials under

FIGURE 1.13: Gandhi in the Salt Satyagraha, 1930—civil disobedience that constitutes revolutionary action. Accessed February 29, 2008, from http://brownfemipower.com/wpcontent/uploads/2007/07/ salt-march.jpg.

What do we mean by social justice?  27

the protection of whistle-blowing laws, the action may be a form of legal protest or perhaps a rule departure. However, whistle-blowing is often considered illegal, either before or after the fact [101]. It may then be considered an act of radical protest or, if specifically challenging an unjust antiwhistle-blowing law, an act of civil disobedience.

1.4

CONCLUSION

This chapter has examined a variety of approaches to social justice action and thought and provided some definitions of social justice. I have not yet developed a definition of social justice in the engineering context, recognizing that the types of critiques levied in engineering will no doubt shape the definition. It is nevertheless important, when working in a specific context, to be clear about what one means by social justice. To fail to do so can mean the co-optation of the terms of the debate and the morphing of social justice into something less than what is desired by its advocates.

References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6. 7. 8.

9. 10.

Hoffman, A. (published under pseudonym “Free”) (1968) Revolution for the hell of it. New York: Dial. Boal, A. (1985) Theatre of the oppressed. Translated by C.A. and M.-O. Leal McBride. New York: Theatre Communications Group. Ruether, R.R. (1983) Sexism and God-talk: Toward a feminist theology. Boston: Beacon Press. Nussbaum, M.C. (2003) Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist Economics, 9(2–3): 33–59. doi:10.1080/1354570022000077926 Teasley, M. and Rice, J. (1996) What is social justice? Perspectives on Multiculturalism and Cultural Diversity, 6(2): 1–3. Accessed July 16, 2007, from http://www.students.vcu.edu/ counsel/MC/justice.html. Educators for Social Justice (2007) University of Washington. Accessed August 9, 2007, from http://students.washington.edu/e4sj/. Novak, M. (2000) Defining social justice. First Things, 108: 11–3. Kikuchi, D. What is “social justice”?—A collection of definitions. Reach and Teach. Accessed July 16, 2007, from http://www.reachandteach.com/content/article.php?story=2004 0812190148765. Columbia-Barnard Website on Social Justice (2007) Accessed August 9, 2007, from http:// socialjustice.ccnmtl.columbia.edu/index.php/Main_Page. Ford Foundation, Peace and Social Justice. Accessed July 20, 2007, from http://www.fordfound. org/program/peace_main.cfm.

28  Engineering and Social JusticE?

11.

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

19. 20. 21. 22.

23. 24.

25.

26.

27.

Marx, K. [1845] (1976) Theses on Feuerbach. In K. Marx and F. Engels (Eds.), Collected Works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, 1845–47, Vol. 5: Theses on Feuerbach, The German Ideology and Related Manuscripts. New York: International Publishers. Baillie, C. (2006) Engineers Within a Local and Global Society. San Rafael, CA: Morgan and Claypool. doi:10.2200/S00059ED1V01Y200609ETS002 Marx, K. and Engels, F. [1888] (1998) The Communist Manifesto. London: Elecbook. Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Translated by R. Nice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Harvey, D. (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press. Steger, M (2003) Globalization: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. Rawls, John. (1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Blackburn, S. (1996) “Common good” and “difference principle” The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press. Oxford Reference Online. Accessed 16 July 2007 from http://www.oxfordreference.com/. Barker, R.L. (2003) Social justice. Social Work Dictionary, 5th edn. Washington, DC: NASW. Banerjee, M.M. (2005) Applying Rawlsian social justice to welfare reform: An unexpected finding for social work. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 32(3): 35–57. Sen, A.K. (1985) Commodities and Capabilities. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Fleurbaey, M. (2007) “Functionings.” International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences. New York: MacMillan. Accessed August 8, 2007, from http://cerses.shs.univ-paris5.fr/publifleurbaey/ functionings.rtf. United Nations (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Adopted December 10, 1948. Accessed February 25, 2008, from http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html. Sunstein, C. (1995) Rights and their critics. Notre Dame Law Review, 70(4): 727–68. Excerpted in Steiner, H.J. and Alston, P. (2000) International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Morals: Text and Materials, 2nd edn. New York: Oxford University Press. Panikkar, R. (1982) Is the notion of human rights a western concept? Diogenes, 30(120): 75–102. Excerpted in Steiner, H.J. and Alston, P. (2000) International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Morals: Text and Materials, 2nd edn. New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1177/039219218203012005 Organization of African Unity (1981) African Charter on Human and People’s Rights. Adopted June 17, 1981, entered into force October 21, 1986. OAU Document CAB/ LEG/67/3 Rev. 5. Accessed September 7, 2007, from http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/ instree/z1afchar.htm. Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, Aug. 5, 1990. U.N. GAOR. World Conference on Human Rights, 4th Session, Agenda Item 5. U.N. Doc. A/CONF.157/PC/62/Add. 18 (1993)

What do we mean by social justice?  29

28. 29. 30. 31.

32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.

42. 43. 44. 45. 46.

47.

Accessed September 7, 2007, from http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/cairodeclaration. html. Noddings, N. (1984) Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education. Berkeley: University of California Press. Gilligan, C. (1982) In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Warren, K. (2000) Ecofeminist Philosophy :A Western Perspective on What It Is and Why It Matters. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Bartky, S.L. (1990) Feeding egos and tending wounds: deference and disaffection in women’s emotional labor. Feminity and Domination: Studies in the phenomenology of oppression (pp. 99–119). New York: Routledge. New York: McGraw Hill. Tronto, J.C. (1987) Beyond gender difference to a theory of care. Signs, 12(4): 644–63. doi:10.1086/494360 Stone, C.D. (1974) Should Trees Have Standing? Toward a Theory of Legal Rights for Natural Objects. Los Altos, CA: William Kaufmann. Emerson, R.W. [1834] (1940) Nature. New York: Scholars’ facsimiles & reprints. Thoreau, H.D. [1854] (1960) Walden. Walden and Civil Disobedience. New York: New American Library. Carson, R. (1963) Silent Spring. London: Hamish Hamilton. Leopold, A. (1949) The Land Ethic. A Sand County Almanac. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hardin, G. (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859): 1243–8. Ehrlich, P.R. (1968) The Population Bomb. New York: Ballantine. White, L. (1967) The historical roots of our ecological crisis. Science, 55: 1203–7. doi:10.1126/ science.155.3767.1203 Næss, A. [1973] (1995) The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement. Originally published in Inquiry, 16, reprinted in Sessions, G. (1995) Deep Ecology for the 21st Century (pp. 151–5). Boston: Shambhala. Lovelock, J.E. and Margulis, L. (1974) Atmospheric homeostasis by and for the biosphereThe Gaia hypothesis. Tellus, 26 (1): 2–10. Bookchin, M. (1980) Toward an Ecological Society. Montreal: Black Rose Books. Porritt J. and Winner, D. (1988) The Coming of the Greens. London: Fontana. Shiva, V. (1988) Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Development. New Delhi: Kali for Women. Singer, P. (2005) “Animals.” The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press 2005. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press, Smith College. 25 July 2007 http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t116.e94. Donovan, J. and Adams, C. J., eds. (2007) The feminist care tradition in animal ethics: a reader. New York: Columbia University Press.

30  Engineering and Social JusticE?

48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53.

54.

55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64.

United Church of Christ (1987) Toxic Waste and Race in the United States. New York, NY: UCC Commission for Racial Justice. Clapp, J. (2001) Toxic Exports: The Transfer of Hazardous Wastes From Rich to Poor Countries. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Catalano, G.D. (2006) Engineering Ethics: Peace, Justice, and the Earth. San Rafael, CA: Morgan and Claypool. doi:10.2200/S00039ED1V01Y200606ETS001 Catalano, G.D. (2007) Engineering, Poverty, and the Earth. San Rafael, CA: Morgan and Claypool. doi:10.2200/S00088ED1V01Y200704ETS004 Qutb, S. (1953) Social Justice in Islam. Translated by J.B. Hardie. Washington: American Council of Learned Societies. Sriraman, B. and Steinthorsdottir, O. (2007) Social justice and mathematics education: Issues, dilemmas, excellence and equity. The Philosophy of Mathematics Education Journal, 21. Accessed February 27, 2008, from http://www.people.ex.ac.uk/PErnest/pome21/Sriraman and Steinthorsdottir Social Justice and Mathematics Education.doc. Cho, S. (2000) Selflessness: Toward a Buddhist vision of social justice. Journal of Buddhist Ethics, 7. Accessed July 16, 2007, from http://www.buddhistethics.org/7/cho001 .html. All Africa Council of Churches/World Council of Churches (1976) Factors Responsible for the Violation of Human Rights in Africa. Issue: A Journal of Opinion, 6(4): 44–6. Polner, M. and Merken, S., Eds. (2007) Peace, Justice, and Jews: Reclaiming Our Tradition. New York: Bunim & Bannigan. Presbyterian Church (USA) Compilation of social witness policies. Accessed February 27, 2008, from http://index.pcusa.org/NXT/gateway.dll/socialpolicy/chapter00000.htm. Young, M.P. (2002) Confessional protest: The religious birth of U.S. national social movements. American Sociological Review, 67(5): 660–88. doi:10.2307/3088911 Gutiérrez, G. (1973) In Sis. C. Inda and J. Eagleson (Eds. and trans.), A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. Boff, L. (1985) Church, Charism and Power: Liberation theology and the institutional church. Translated by J.W. Diercksmeier. New York: Crossroad. Hornsby-Smith, M.P. (2006) An Introduction to Catholic Social Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press. Billingsley, A. (1999) Mighty Like a River: The Black Church and Social Reform. New York: Oxford University Press. Ross, R. E. (2003) Witnessing and Testifying: Black Women, Religion, and civil rights. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Cone, J.H. (1970) A Black Theology of Liberation. Philadelphia: Lippincott.

What do we mean by social justice?  31

65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81.

82. 83. 84. 85.

Boesak, A.A. (1978) Black Theology, Black Power. London: Mowbrays. West, C. (1982) Prophesy deliverance! An Afro-American revolutionary Christianity. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. Daly, L.C. (2000) A Moment to Decide: The Crisis in Mainstream Presbyterianism. New York: Institute for Democracy Studies. Horkheimer, M. [1937] (1972) Traditional and Critical Theory. Critical Theory: Selected Essays. Translated by M.J. O’Connell et al. New York: Herder and Herder. Donovan, J. (2000) Feminist Theory: The Intellectual Traditions. New York: Continuum. Tong, R.P. (1998) Feminist Thought: A More Comprehensive Introduction, 2nd edn. Boulder, CO: Westview. Millet, K. (1970) Sexual Politics. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Daly, M. (1978) Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism. Boston: Beacon Press. Dworkin, A. (1987) Intercourse. New York: Free Press. Rich, A.C. (1976) Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution. New York: Norton. Jaggar, A.M. (1983 Feminist Politics and Human Nature. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld. Young, I.M. (1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. De Beauvoir, S. (1953) In H.M. Parshley (Ed. and trans.), The Second Sex. New York: Knopf. Butler, J. (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge. hooks, bell. (1984) Feminist Theory from Margin to Center. Boston: South End Press. Collins, P.H. (1990) Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. Boston: Unwin Hyman. Summers, L.H. (2005) Remarks at NBER Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce, January 14, 2005. Accessed February 20, 2008, from http://www. president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/nber.html. Delgado, R. and Stefancic, J. (2001) Critical Race Theory: An introduction. New York: New York University Press. Freeman, A.D. (1978) Legitimizing racial discrimination through anti-discrimination law: A critical review of Supreme Court doctrine. Minnesota Law Review, 62: 1049–119. O’Brien, R. (2005) Bodies in Revolt: Gender, Disability, and a Workplace Ethic of Care. New York: Routledge. Brownlee, K. Civil disobedience. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed July 23, 2007, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/.

32  Engineering and Social JusticE?

86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92.

93. 94.

95. 96. 97.

98. 99. 100. 101.

Thoreau, H.D. [1849] (1960) Civil disobedience. Walden and Civil Disobedience. New York: New American Library. Nader, R. (1972) Unsafe at Any Speed. New York: Grossman. Dowie, M. (1977) Pinto madness. Mother Jones Sept/Oct: 18–32. Dunne, J.G. (1967) Delano: the Story of the California Grape Strike. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Egelko, B. (2004) Top state court voids S.F.’s gay marriages. San Francisco Chronicle, August 13 2004, A1. U.S. Army (2006) Regulation 600-43. Accessed February 20, 2008, from http://www.usapa .army.mil/pdffiles/r600_43.pdf. Lesbian Avengers. (1995) Anti-Queer Agency Targeted for Protest Exodus International Swarmed by Plague of Locusts. Press release February 9, 1995. Distributed via National Gay and Lesbian Task Force mailing list. Accessed August 10, 2007, from: http://www. skeptictank.org/hs/exodus.htm. Manes, C. (1990) Green Rage: Radical Environmentalism and the Unmaking of Civilization. New York: Little, Brown. Blight, D.W., Ed. (2006) Passages to Freedom: the Underground Railroad in History and Memory. Washington: Smithsonian Books in association with the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center. McDonough, F. (2001) Opposition and Resistance in Nazi Germany. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Stauffer, J. (2002) The Black Hearts of Men: Radical Abolitionists and the Transformation of Race. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Douglass, F. (1857) The Significance of Emancipation in the West Indies. Speech given at Canandaigua, New York, August 3, 1857. Two Speeches by Frederick Douglass (p. 3–24), Rochester, NY: C.P. Dewey. Accessed August 10, 2007, from Frederick Douglass Archives: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/doughtml/doughome.html. Smith, P.C. and Warrior, R.A. (1996) Like a Hurricane: The Indian Movement from Alcatraz to Wounded Knee. New York: The New Press. Danaher, K. and Burbach, R. (2000) Globalize This! The Battle Against the World Trade Organization and Corporate Rule. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press. Vernus, P. (2003) The Strikes, Affairs and Scandals in Ancient Egypt (pp. 50–69). Translated by D. Lorton. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Lane, C. (2006) High court’s free-speech ruling favors government; Public workers on duty not protected. Washington Post, May 31, 2006, A01. • • • •

33

chapter 2

Mindsets in Engineering “The technical rationality that is the engineer’s stock-in-trade requires the calculation of means for the realization of given ends. But it requires no broad insight into those ends or their consequences. Engineers are aware of, are trained to be aware of, these limitations; insofar as they do consider ends, they cease to act as engineers.” Robert Zussman [1: 122–123] This chapter uses engineering humor to draw out some mindsets commonly found in engineering and relates them to the intersection of engineering and social justice. Some mindsets are so much a part of mainstream engineering culture (or mainstream culture) that we may be unaware of alternative perspectives. The intent of this chapter is to separate the worldviews from the profession of engineering itself.

2.1

AN ENGINEERING MINDSET?

The last chapter dealt with developing a definition of social justice. Engineering may be somewhat easier to define than social justice, but it too has a contested and changing definition. The earliest uses of the word engineer in the English language (fourteenth century) were used to describe “a constructor of military engines” or “one who designs and constructs military works for attack or defense” [2]. In the nineteenth and most of the twentieth century, engineering was, in the words of Thomas Tredgold [3], “the art of directing the great sources of Power in Nature for the use and convenience of man.” As the field sought to move away from its identity as a trade into that of a profession, it emphasized its theoretical underpinnings in science and became thought of as the application of math and science toward useful ends—typically commercial, industrial, or military: “The application of scientific and mathematical principles to practical ends such as the design, manufacture, and operation of efficient and economical structures, machines, processes, and systems” [4]. Emphasis is often placed on problem solving as the primary activity of engineers or on invention and creativity. More recently, the exploitation of natural resources has been dropped as a defining element of engineering in favor of definitions such as “the science and art of applying scientific and mathematical principles, experience, judgment, and common sense to design things that benefit society” [5]. To some degree, these shifting definitions of engineering reflect changing views

34  Engineering and Social Justice

about the profession and its role in society as well as the changing values within the profession. Thus, the profession itself and its meaning in society can and do change, reminding us that we can shape what engineering is in order to make it more responsive to social justice concerns. Before examining the relationship between engineering and social justice, I want to distinguish the profession of engineering from some common mindsets one finds within the profession, particularly those mindsets that, as we will see in Chapter 3, often stand in the way of engineering’s intersection with social justice. While I recognize that, of course, the profession currently and historically reinforces and helps create the mindsets within it, I believe it is only through recognizing the underlying mindsets and changing them that the profession can truly be transformed. The profession has a central role to play in bringing about this change in mindset, and so I begin by seeking to characterize the worldviews which are held so commonly in engineering and throughout many parts of our society that one may not even recognize that there are alternatives. I carefully and intentionally do not refer to “the engineering mindset” because I seek to drive a separation between engineering and common mindsets in engineering in order to create change; I believe the mindsets I discuss here do not have to be the mindsets of engineers or of engineering. Indeed, engineering would be quite different if different worldviews were more common, and that is exactly the point. Thus, we may not yet have a common understanding of what engineering is, or could be. I assume that the reader is sufficiently familiar with the profession of engineering and I do not seek to answer the question “what is engineering” in its naive sense, or in its totality, as many books, magazines, and websites do in order to recruit students. Rather, I seek to highlight certain mindsets relevant to the intersection of engineering and social justice. I seek to help engineers see ourselves with a new awareness of some of the things we often take as given in our profession and education. Some of these characteristics equip us to work on social justice issues, while others, as we will see more fully in the next chapter, keep us from working on—and sometimes even from recognizing or fully understanding the complexities of—social justice issues.

2.2

PROFESSIONAL HUMOR: DRAWING ON STEREOTYPE

Every profession has a series of jokes about itself, generally told within the group and drawing on some stereotypes about the profession. Clearly, not all engineers fit the stereotype, and some stereotypes are largely false. However, the jokes make some important contrasts between engineering and other professions, which reveal something about common mindsets in engineering which are less prevalent in other professions. If we look at these with an eye to cultural analysis, we can draw out some characteristics of these mindsets that are relevant to the intersection of engineering and social justice. These jokes may draw some strong reactions from readers; I ask that you remember these are stereotypes. We have the power to challenge and resist any of these stereotypes in our own lives, to

MINDSETS IN ENGINEERING  35

develop new mindsets, and to change both the perceptions and the realities of the profession. These jokes are part of an oral tradition and are related here as I recall them, although most can be found in any number of online archives (see, e.g., http://www.inflection-point.com/jokes.php).

2.2.1 Joke 1: The Guillotine A lawyer, a priest, and an engineer are scheduled to be executed by guillotine. The lawyer goes first, the executioner pulls the cord, but nothing happens. “Double Jeopardy! You have to let me go!,” cries the lawyer. And the executioner does. The priest is next, the same thing happens. “Divine Intervention! You have to let me go!,” cries the priest. And the executioner does. The engineer is next. As the executioner gets ready to pull the cord, the engineer cries, “Wait! I think I see your problem . . . ” (Figure 2.1). This joke is rich, revealing multiple perspectives and values. First, there is a valuing of problemsolving abilities and a celebration that engineers can solve problems others cannot—in this case, to a fault. Part of this ability is credited to another value—exclusive technical focus—in this case, to the exclusion of everything else going on in the world around us, even in our own lives. Third, this joke draws on the value of loyalty—an unthinking willingness to accept the authority of the state, such

FIGURE 2.1: “Wait, I think I see your problem. . . . ” Engineers solving problems even if it kills us. Accessed January 18, 2008, from http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/15200/15229/guillotine_15229_lg.gif.

36  Engineering and Social Justice

that an engineer would fix a guillotine even when it is the engineer's own neck on the line. There is altruism here as well, a willingness to help other people and to solve their problems, even if it kills us and even if it betrays a social justice value like opposition to the death penalty.

2.2.2 Joke 2: The Church Steeple An engineer and a sociologist were tasked with finding the height of a church steeple. The engineer measured the angle to the top of the steeple and calculated the height using trigonometry. Then, to check the estimate, the engineer climbed to the top of the steeple, lowered a string until it touched the ground, climbed back down and measured the length of the string. The engineer compared the measurement to the estimate, calculated the standard error, and drafted a report documenting the methods and results. The sociologist bought the sexton a beer in the local pub and he told her how high the church steeple was. This joke emphasizes the engineer’s tendency toward “brute force” methods of problem solving and an exclusive focus on the calculated and measured solution, even if it takes much longer… Perhaps it does not occur to the engineer to simply ask someone; perhaps it does but a certain social awkwardness gets in the way. This joke also says something about epistemology, or how we know what we know. While the sociologist derives knowledge through human interaction, the engineer might not trust the veracity of this type of knowledge. Instead, the engineer relies on the scientific method, using mathematics to create an estimate and then designing and conducting an experiment to make a measurement. This exclusive reliance on the scientific method to reveal knowledge is known to philosophers as positivism. Positivist epistemology is a common mindset in engineering (certainly, our education trains us in this way). Without an awareness of alternative epistemologies, one adhering to this mindset might simply characterize scientific knowledge as “true” or “factual” and view other kinds of knowledge as “less reliable” or as “opinion.”

2.2.3 Joke 3: You Might Be an Engineer If . . . You might be an engineer if . . . in college you thought Spring Break was metal fatigue failure. You might be an engineer if . . . you say “It’s 77 degrees Fahrenheit, 25 degrees Celsius, and 298 Kelvin,” and all they say is “Isn't it a nice day?”

MINDSETS IN ENGINEERING  37

Here, engineers are characterized as being solely focused on work and too busy to have fun, or too focused on technical details to relate socially or just enjoy the day. Whether engineers are not interested in the traditional Spring Break activities involving the opposite sex and drinking, or whether their engineering education is so overloaded with technical courses and grunt work that they have no time to even think about Spring Break is up to interpretation; that is, the joke plays on both stereotypes. The engineer apparently does not know when to turn off the technological approach, when to stop analyzing/working and just have fun. The values here could be characterized as a strong work ethic, and a strong and narrow technical focus, perhaps including as well a denial or devaluing of relationships and enjoyment.

2.2.4 Joke 4: The Golf Course A pastor (rabbi/imam/priest), a doctor, and an engineer were waiting one morning for a particularly slow group of golfers. Annoyed, they decide to ask the greens keeper, who explains that they are a group of blind firefighters who lost their sight fighting a fire in the clubhouse years ago, and they play for free whenever they want. The pastor remarked, “That’s so sad. I'll pray for them.” The doctor said, “I know an ophthalmologist who might be able to do something for them.” The engineer said, “Why can’t they play at night?” This joke reveals a mindset focused completely on the practical side, in the interest of problem solving, to the exclusion of human relationships and even basic compassion. Interestingly, engineering is cast as a profession that is not a helping profession in contrast to medicine and ministry.

2.2.5 Joke 5: Mechanical vs. Civil What’s the difference between a mechanical engineer and a civil engineer? Mechanical engineers build weapons, civil engineers build targets. This is a joke about the military orientation of engineering. It is both a slight against civil engineers (as in, ha, ha! You just build things so we mechanical engineers can blow them up) and a commentary on militarism in engineering. In one reading, this joke takes the work that civil engineers do out of the context of helping people have clean water, sanitation, transportation, etc., and diminishes it by placing it in the military context, in which it is seen as a “target,” destroyed by mechanical engineers. This reveals a distinct militaristic mindset. In another reading, this is a comment on the futility of militarism, or simply a matter-of-fact recognition of engineering’s military focus. This

38  Engineering and Social Justice

reveals a mindset critical of militarism in engineering. I have heard the joke told in both contexts, revealing both mindsets in engineering.

2.2.6 Joke 6: ‘I Are an Engineer’ Real engineers . . . have a non-technical vocabulary of 800 words. This joke (and the joke I snuck in the section header) communicates a devaluation of written and oral communication skills, as they celebrate engineers’ difficulty in this area.

2.2.7 Joke 7: Real Engineers . . . Real engineers . . . have politics that run toward a corner office and a parking space with their name on it. This joke emphasizes the corporate context in which engineers often work and a mindset of managerialism in which organizational bureaucracy is an end in itself. The popularity of Dilbert reinforces the centrality of corporate life for engineers. This joke reveals a mindset that is careerist, politically inactive, disinterested, or uninformed.

2.2.8 Joke 8: The Glass To the optimist, the glass is half-full. To the pessimist, the glass is half-empty. To the engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be (Figure 2.2). This joke is overtly about engineers’ worldview. Some would praise this mindset as creative thinking outside the box (or the glass). Certainly, it challenges some things that are conventionally assumed. At the same time, this joke reveals a mindset that will not evaluate a situation and refuses to make a subjective judgment. Is this a sign of uncompromising objectivity, or just bad design? Drinking water will continually require redesign of the glass.

2.3 WHAT DO THESE JOKES TELL US ABOUT MINDSETS IN ENGINEERING? It is too simple to say that these jokes tell us nothing about engineering because they are based on stereotypes, for which we can find many counterexamples. The fact that these are the jokes that

MINDSETS IN ENGINEERING  39

FIGURE 2.2: Half-full, half-empty, or wrong-sized? Accessed January 18, 2008, from http://bp2 .blogger.com/_tqCXEUMzxCk/RqVHzNrXBGI/AAAAAAAAAOI/IZp5UWPHjQ0/s320/ Half+Full+Glass.jpg.

are told about engineering by engineers and that these are the stereotypes our community draws on, and not other ones, demands our notice and our interpretation. How do they acculturate us as members of the profession? There is a combination of self-deprecation and celebration of these characteristics in the engineering jokes, an acknowledgement that many possess these mindsets and a recognition that they may not always produce desirable outcomes. Within each joke lies not only the presentation of a mindset but also some discontent with it and desire for change. Let us examine each characteristic more carefully.

2.3.1 A Desire to Help . . . and the Persistence to Do It There is something in the spirit of the engineer that wants to help. Some engineering deans call for a public relations and/or recruitment campaign that presents engineering as a profession that serves humanity [6,7]. They can cite examples, whether it is bringing clean water and sanitation to a community or developing new drugs, designing renewable energy solutions to address climate change, or connecting people with wireless networks. Engineers are known for our work ethic; we are committed to getting the job done and will slog through hours of grunt work to make it happen. We serve and serve well. The helping spirit and strong work ethic of engineers are important traits for engaging in social justice work. There is a certain amount of overlap between the kinds of problems

40  Engineering and Social Justice

engineers solve and social justice problems, although the engineering approach may not define the problem to be solved in terms of social justice.

2.3.2 Centrality of Military and Corporate Organizations This raises a question: who does engineering serve? We want to help, but who are we actually helping? Alice Pawley [8], assistant professor of engineering education at Purdue, analyzes the narratives of engineering faculty members with an eye to the establishment and reinforcement of gendered boundaries in engineering. She uses three tools in analyzing the way engineers define and delimit the boundaries of our profession: space, time, and actors. Pawley’s construct of space helps us understand where engineers work. Drawing on National Science Foundation data as well as her interviews with engineering faculty, Pawley establishes that engineers work overwhelmingly in private profit-oriented organizations and on industrial, commercial, and military problems. Problems tend to be at a larger scale, with small-scale problems relegated to areas outside of engineering. There are few opportunities for engineering employment outside of government, industrial, and commercial settings. The centrality of managerialism in engineering may not be surprising, given that engineers are embedded in corporate organizations. Managerialism takes a systems approach to organizational management, viewing human relationships within the organization through a lens of inputs and outputs and increasing organizational efficiencies by minimizing inputs and maximizing outputs [9]. Turning to actors, Pawley asks who defines engineering problems, who benefits from the solutions to the problems, and who actually does the work of engineering. She further asks who is left out of the picture; while her analysis specifically examines how these boundaries are drawn along gender lines, the questions are equally relevant for examining other questions of social justice. Applying Pawley’s construct of time to her data reveals that engineers typically rely on tradition and precedent in determining what they should do in the present and future. This makes the profession resistant to change. Pawley’s constructs cited above and the research she draws upon in her work provide some insight into why engineering retains a narrow focus that excludes and precludes a great deal of social justice work. Clearly, broadening the settings in which engineers work and the actors involved is necessary to create opportunities for engineers to work on social justice issues.

2.3.3 Engineers Have a Narrow Technical Focus and Therefore Lack a Number of Other Skills Engineering’s embedding in military and corporate applications can explain the narrow sense of career path many students experience. There are few alternatives to a military or corporate career in

MINDSETS IN ENGINEERING  41

engineering and to the development of a culture within engineering that does not question authority in preparation for performance in hierarchical military and corporate organizations. Bruce Seely [10], a historian who studies engineering education, has documented the reform efforts in engineering education over the last century; one of the things they have in common is the recurring debate about how broad or narrowly focused an engineering degree should be and how much (and what specific) content from the liberal arts is appropriate. In 2000, the Accreditation Board on Engineering and Technology [11] changed the program outcomes criteria (standards) to include a number of nontechnical capacities engineering students must develop including communication, teamwork, global and local context, and professional responsibility. The extent to which these are addressed varies from program to program, as engineering curricula continue to be packed heavily with required courses. Generally, engineering students learn to think analytically only in certain ways appropriate to technical analysis. For example, we learn to break problems down into small parts, solve the individual parts, and then work back up to a solution. We typically do not come away with the ability to think critically, to question what is given, or question the validity of our assumptions, because we are too busy learning the essentials of problem solving. For this reason, we often cannot see the larger context of the problem we are working. We lose sight of the big picture, especially if we are sleep-deprived from too many hours in the lab and doing problem sets. We do not learn, with any depth, critical approaches from the humanities and social sciences, and we do not learn many communication skills beyond writing technical reports and giving PowerPoint presentations. Thus, it is no wonder that some engineers may come across as apolitical or clued out about contemporary issues outside of technology.

2.3.4 Positivism and the Myth of Objectivity A positivist mindset often relates to two other perspectives that are commonly held in engineering: reductionism and technological determinism. Reductionism is the notion that phenomena (or problems) can be broken down into smaller components for analysis and that analysis of the components can fully explain the system as a whole. A reductionist perspective is evident in the engineering problem solving and engineering design processes. Technological determinism holds that technology develops on its own in a self-propelling fashion (i.e., without regard to social forces) and that its innovations, in turn, impact society and drive political, cultural, and economic developments. This perspective is found in engineering when concern is placed on the impacts of technology on society without consideration for how society also constructs technology. Positivism and technological determinism lead many engineers to believe that their work is objective and that science itself is objective. As Foucault [12] points out, however, science is subject to the same vicissitudes of power that other forms of truth face from institutions in society. It is easy to recognize power at work in what

42  Engineering and Social Justice

questions are considered fundable, what research is pursued and later published, and how entire fields of inquiry are established and supported or left unfunded and floundering. For example, in the Bush Administration’s Climate Change Science Program begun in 2002, 13 federal agencies’ funding directed toward climate research has been coordinated to answer questions determined to be of high priority. Unfortunately, many of the most critical questions around the human and economic dimensions of global change have been given short shrift, while the anthropogenic causes of climate change (which were already well established by 2002) are now extremely well studied [13]. It should also be noted that in the Bush administration, even more extreme measures were taken to control information related to climate change. Science journalist Seth Shulman [14] documents several cases of government suppression of scientific studies that differed from the administration’s position and other efforts to undermine the work of government scientists. Cases include censorship of government reports on climate change. When science is seen as objective, technology itself is seen as neutral (and often ahistorical), disregarding the social forces that demand certain forms of technology or pose certain questions. The consequences of technology are attributed entirely to the way the technology is ultimately used and not seen as part of the engineer’s responsibility. Thus, the values that are embedded in technology are often those of the engineers’ employers. Each engineered object brings with it a set of values and assumptions, which ought no longer to be taken for granted. I will examine these issues further in Chapter 3. Waller [15] points out the predominance of positivism in engineering research, which carries over into engineering education research, to its detriment. Harding [16: 125] questions the use of positivist frameworks in engineering (and science) research, noting that “the ideal of one true science obscures the fact that any system of knowledge will generate systematic patterns of ignorance as well as of knowledge.” Harding further notes how the myth of expertise can lead to authoritarian power structures. Science and technology studies scholar Langdon Winner [17] makes a similar point in noting how engineered systems, such as nuclear power plants, require centralized power structures in order to be created and maintained.

2.3.5 Uncritical Acceptance of Authority A positivist mindset that sticks with the scientific method as the only way of knowing what we know, combined with a lack of exposure to other ways of knowing, or contexts in which those other ways of knowing are valued, can lead to a lack of questioning of certain types of information. When we do not learn to question the information given to us, we are unlikely to question authority. When the organizations who hire us operate in hierarchies and we are rewarded by following orders within those organizations, we are unlikely to question authority. Sociologist Diane Vaughan’s [18] account of the events in National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) leading up to the

MINDSETS IN ENGINEERING  43

Challenger accident document the ways in which power can construct knowledge in organizations, as outside pressures related to NASA’s funding and productivity became internalized and began to affect thinking and behavior inside the organization. She documents the ways in which engineers conformed to organizational norms when raising concerns, following chains of command and deviating only at the behest of an authority. Vaughan’s work suggests that the organizations in which engineers work may play a large role in setting these norms for engineers, as other employees may behave similarly regardless of their training or profession. Sociologists Diego Gambeta and Steffen Hertog [19] present some unsettling data about the overrepresentation of engineers among radical Islamist groups (44% of those with college degrees where the major subject was known were engineers). Notably, engineers were not present among non-Islamic leftist groups, but were well represented among non-Islamist right-wing groups and overrepresented among U.S. white supremacists. In seeking to explain this overrepresentation, the authors found no evidence of engineers being selected by the radical groups because of their technical expertise. They rather offer two explanations: that engineers experienced particular social difficulties in Islamic society and that engineers, among others, are more likely to possess a certain mindset that increases their propensity to right-wing radicalism and violence. To support their argument, Gambeta and Hertog reference documents from radical Islamist groups and Western intelligence, noting recruiters look for a combination of intelligence and a willing acceptance of authority. Engineers were, in fact, recruited by some groups (and self-selected into others) more for their mindset than their technical ability. This mindset exhibits three traits: monism (a belief in one right answer and an intolerance of uncertainty), simplism (locating a single cause for complex phenomena, a belief that rational behavior leads to simple solutions to social problems), and preservatism (a desire to restore a lost mythical order to society). Monism and simplism relate fairly clearly to positivism and reductionism as discussed above. Gambeta and Hertog cite additional evidence for the presence of this mindset in surveys of engineers around the world and ethnographic work with radical Islamist engineers. This mindset is distinctly right-wing in a political sense. It also prevents the acquisition of some critical analytical tools used in the social sciences and humanities to understand our world.

2.4

CONCLUSION

Engineers and the engineering profession have some characteristics that prepare us well to work on social justice issues: the strong desire to be helpful and the persistence of a strong work ethic. Yet some structural problems with the profession—its military and corporate focus and the narrowness of engineering education, which excludes a number of important skills—can present obstacles when we engage in social justice work. In addition, there is an engineering outlook that privileges scientific knowledge over other kinds of knowledge, prefers certainty to uncertainty, and seeks single,

44  Engineering and Social Justice

simplistic explanations for complex social phenomena, which creates a political tendency that eschews social justice and presents real roadblocks in acquiring skills outside of engineering that are needed for social justice work. In the next chapter, we begin to step outside the common mindsets in engineering by considering some critiques of engineering from a social justice perspective.

References 1. 2. 3.

4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

9. 10. 11.

12. 13.

Zussman, R. (1985) Mechanics of the Middle Class: Work and Politics Among American Engineers. Berkeley: University of California Press. OED (1989) “Engineer, n.” The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edn. OED Online. Oxford University Press. Accessed August 6, 2007, from http://dictionary.oed.com/. Tredgold, T. (1828) Draft of the Charter of the British Institution of Civil Engineers. Cited in Mitcham, C. (1998) The importance of philosophy to engineering, Teorema, 17(3): 27–47. American Heritage Dictionary (2006) “Engineering.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the Engligh Language, 4th edn. New York: Houghton Mifflin. University of Utah College of Engineering. What is Engineering? Accessed September 26, 2007, from http://www.coe.utah.edu/k12/What. Grasso, D. (2005) Is it time to shut down engineering colleges? Inside Higher Ed, September 23, 2005. Jamieson, L.H. (2007) Who will become an engineer? Keynote address, Frontiers in Education Conference, Milwaukee, WI, October 12, 2007. Pawley, A. (2007) Where do you draw the line? A study of academic engineers negotiating the boundaries of engineering. Doctoral dissertation, Industrial Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Pawley, C. (1998) Hegemony’s handmaid? The library and information studies curriculum from a class perspective. The Library Quarterly, 68(2): 123–44. Seely, B.E. (2005) Patterns in the history of engineering education reform: A brief essay. Educating the Engineer of 2020 (pp. 114–30). Washington, DC: National Academies Press. ABET (2008) Criteria for accrediting engineering programs. Accessed January 10, 2008, from http://www.abet.org/Linked Documents-UPDATE/Criteria and PP/E001 07-08 EAC Criteria 11-15-06.pdf. Foucault, M. (1980) Truth and Power. In: C. Gordon (Ed.) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977. New York: Pantheon, 131–133. National Academy of Science (2007) Evaluating Progress of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program: Methods and Preliminary Results. Washington, DC: National Academies Press,

MINDSETS IN ENGINEERING  45

14. 15.

16. 17. 18. 19.

2007. Pre-publication copy accessed October 5, 2007, from http://www.nap.edu/catalog .php?record_id=11934http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11934. Shulman, S. (2007) Undermining Science: Suppression and Distortion in the Bush Administration. Berkeley: University of California Press. Waller, A.A. (2006) Special Session—Fish is Fish: Learning to See the Sea We Swim in: Theoretical Frameworks for Education Research, Frontiers in Education Conference Proceedings, San Diego, CA, 2006. Harding, S. (2006) Science and Social Inequality: Feminist and Postcolonial Issues. Champaign, IL: The University of Illinois Press. Winner, L. (1986) Do artifacts have politics? The Whale and the Reactor (pp. 19–39). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Vaughan, D. (1996) The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gambeta, D. and Hertog, S. (2007) Engineers of Jihad. Sociology Working Papers 200710, Oxford University. Accessed January 25, 2008, from http://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/users/ gambetta/Engineers%20of  %20Jihad.pdf. • • • •

47

chapter 3

Engineering and Social Justice “When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.” Martin Luther King, Jr. [1: 9] This chapter motivates the kinds of social justice and peace work needed within engineering, taking a historical perspective on the profession and identifying obstacles to social change work embedded in the culture and power structures of engineering and its primary organizations. At the heart of this chapter is the naming of militarism, materialism, the myth of objectivity, and other implicit perspectives with which engineering has become strongly identified, motivating the need for engineers to be able to critique these underlying worldviews and ultimately re-visioning how engineering might be different. It is not my intention to attack engineering, but rather to identify how some common mindsets lead to engineering that produces injustice and to uncover what kinds of resistance have already emerged. What does it mean to do engineering in the interest of social and ecological justice?

3.1

POLITICAL CONSERVATISM AND LIBERTARIANISM

Previously, I discussed the myth of objectivity in engineering and the related myth that engineers are apolitical. The myth of the political neutrality of engineering can be exploded in multiple ways; most clear is the research on the expressed political outlooks and political culture of engineers, which document prevailing conservative and libertarian values, many of which are at odds with social justice ideals presented in Chapter 1. Sociologist Robert Zussman [2] documented the conservatism of engineers in western Massachusetts (see Figure 3.1). He found that 71% of engineers reported a preference for Nixon over McGovern in the 1972 presidential election; Nixon took 61% of the popular vote nationally, and even less in the northeast where these interviews occurred. Similarly, 53% of Zussman’s participants identified more strongly as Republican than Democratic, as compared with 30% in a general national survey of the same post-Watergate period.

48  engineering and social justice

FIGURE 3.1: Political leanings of engineers in two Massachusetts firms (Republican shown in red (light gray in print edition)). Top: Votes in the 1972 Nixon–McGovern election compared with all votes in the state. Bottom: General political leanings compared with national poll data of the same era [2]. Data from Zussman [2].

Supporting Zussman’s findings, feminist sociologist Sally Hacker [3] relates her experiences in observing engineering classrooms, noting that “at the most and least prestigious institutions, the Institute and the community college agribusiness program, educators presented a conservative ideology, often through humor . . .” (55). Data from the Carnegie Foundation [4] taken in 1984, as analyzed in 2007 by sociologists Diego Gambeta and Steffen Hertog [5], also bear this out (see Figure 3.2). In seeking to explain the overrepresentation of engineers in radical Islamist groups around the world and white supremacist groups

engineering and social justice  49

FIGURE 3.2: Political identities of United States faculty members, 1984. Data from Carnegie Foundation [4] as analyzed by Gambeta and Hertog [5].

in the United States, Gambeta and Hertog reviewed research on engineers’ political preferences. They considered only political preferences of men in the Carnegie study, because the radical Islamists and white supremacists were male. This workup of the data is useful here for comparing political preferences across disciplines because of the underrepresentation of women in engineering; by considering only male perspectives, it is clear that political differences across disciplines cannot be attributed to the differences in proportions of women in those disciplines. While just over 20% of engineers consider themselves left of center, more than half consider themselves right of center. Engineers have the highest percentage of conservatives among all disciplines. It is important to note the limitations of the right–left spectrum for describing political perspectives. Antigovernment perspectives, including libertarianism and all types of anarchism, are not adequately accounted for in right–left descriptions. Former Wired journalist Paulina Borsook [6] documented the libertarian and anarcho-capitalist attitudes of engineers and computer scientists in Silicon Valley. In terms of voting trends or party affiliation, Silicon Valley looks more like a crosssection of the United States, representing the full spectrum of voting choices, although with markedly less local involvement or political activity. Regardless of party affiliation, Silicon Valley geeks share a philosophical libertarianism that is an insidious and pervasive fixture of Silicon Valley culture. This is characterized by hatred of government and regulation, absolute faith in free markets, and

50  engineering and social justice

stinginess when it comes to individual giving or corporate philanthropy. Antigovernment sentiments persist despite the fact that Silicon Valley owes its success to government investment in research and development (R&D) and university training of computer professionals. Selfishness persists despite the large amount of wealth generated throughout Silicon Valley. Borsook attributes the attraction to libertarianism among geeks partly to a “personality defect” of social awkwardness that “bespeaks a lack of human connection and a discomfort with what many of us consider it means to be human. It’s an inability to reconcile the demands of being individual with the demands of participating in society, which coincides beautifully with a preference for, and glorification of, being the solo commander of one’s computer in lieu of any other economically viable behavior.” (15) (It should perhaps be noted here that technolibertarians connect at one level with engineers interested in social justice issues through issues such as defense of online civil liberties; groups such as Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility and the Electronic Frontier Foundation would house both technolibertarians and engineers for social justice in the quest to further these causes.) While neither appellation—conservative or technolibertarian—captures the outlooks of all engineers, the snapshots tell two important stories. It should not be surprising, especially with the strong role defense work plays in engineering, that there would be many engineers with a conservative political outlook, supporting a strong defense funded by the federal government. It should also not be surprising, with the strong role of corporations in employing engineers, that there would be a strong backing of free-market principles, which would lead to a conservative or libertarian outlook. Similarly, antiregulation attitudes can be found among engineers working in different kinds of manufacturing (chemical, petroleum, etc.) as well as in Silicon Valley. Developing a critical perspective on one’s profession is extremely difficult, as in the oft-cited words of Upton Sinclair [7], “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” (109). Given Winner’s [8] argument that certain technologies require certain types of power structures (e.g., nuclear power requires strong centralized control), it is possible to imagine that engineers might be invested in those power structures that support the technologies they are responsible for building and maintaining. The libertarianism of Silicon Valley is perhaps counterintuitive when one considers the Internet’s origins as a federally funded defense project, but on closer examination, it is easy to see how a lack of government involvement in the Internet serves the capitalist and commercial desires of Silicon Valley.

3.1.1 Countertrends: Engineers on the Left One notable countertrend to this distinct conservatism was the group Scientists and Engineers for Social and Political Action (SESPA), which later became known as Science for the People. Engineering historian Matt Wisnioski [9] relates the history of the group from 1969 to its demise in

engineering and social justice  51

1991. The group consisted of academics and citizens concerned about the use/abuse of science and engineering toward militaristic and other socially unjust purposes. The group initially maintained a distinctly Maoist socialist perspective, offering class analyses and critiques of imperialism in science and engineering, opposing the war in Vietnam, poverty, racism, sexism, and environmental devastation. They staged protests at American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) conferences, which they called the AAA$. A revival group (www.scienceforthepeople.com) was founded in 2002 in Europe, carrying on the mission of levying an anticapitalist critique of science. Social anarchists have also had a role to play in engineering. The anarcho-syndicalist movement influenced the actions of engineers in Britain during and after World War I, when in the face of strong state interest in engineers’ ability to manufacture weaponry, the state co-opted unions and sought increased control over engineers’ labor [10].

3.2

ENGINEERING AND CLASS

Applying Marx's ideas about class (discussed in Chapter 1) in relation to engineering's relationship to class, classism, and economic justice clearly shows a complicated relationship of engineering and class. Part of the problem lies in the fact that engineers hold many different kinds of jobs, with varying levels and types of responsibility and power. It is difficult to generalize about the positions engineers hold or the roles they play in companies or government agencies. Are engineers members of the proletariat, resourced not with capital resources but with only our skill set, which an industrialist needs for production? Or are we part of a middle-level professional or managerial class that exploits labor? Much has been made in engineering ethics of an engineering–management split; what is cast as “the right thing to do” from an engineering perspective stands in contrast to what a manager would consider the right thing to do. This point is starkly made in many engineering ethics curricula using the infamous incident referenced in the report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger [11], in which Morton-Thiokol executive Jerry Mason instructed an engineer to take off his engineer's hat and put on his manager's hat in considering the launch decision. Here, engineers are proletarian heroes. In many engineering jobs, however, the engineer is a hybrid of worker and manager. Ralph Nader [12] points this out in Unsafe at Any Speed, where he relates the response of Howard Gandelot, vehicle safety engineer at General Motors (GM), to a letter from a banker whose 8-year-old son broke a tooth on the dashboard of a Buick during a sudden stop to avoid hitting a kitten. (Gandelot suggested the banker train his children to brace themselves using the command “hands!”) Nader notes that Gandelot was not acting as a professional engineer, but as a loyal employee of GM, in crafting such a reply. “The automotive safety engineers . . . have been assigned the task of being the

52  engineering and social justice

company spokesmen whenever the issue of safe vehicle design is raised at technical meetings or in public forums” (173). Here, the conflict between manager and engineer is located within the individual, not within the organizational structure, although the structure clearly creates the role conflict within a single position.

3.2.1 Upward Mobility? Looking at career trajectories of engineers, there is a sense (at least historically speaking) of the profession as a route for the upwardly mobile, a way to move from working class to middle class, from blue collar to white collar. In the 1960s, working-class students were more likely to choose engi­ neering than students from other backgrounds [13]. In a National Merit Scholarship Corporation study of students from 248 different colleges during the same era over 4 years, students switching out of the engineering major were of higher socioeconomic standing, and those entering were working class, increasing the working-class composition of engineering students [14]. There are several possible reasons for this, historically. The first was the promise of a 4-year professional degree that led to a stable white-collar job with a good salary. Under the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act (“G.I. Bill”) from 1944 to 1951, 450,000 former servicemen went to college (many with these aspirations) and became engineers [15]. Engineering may also be perceived as an upwardly mobile profession because of its “hands-on” nature; writer and engineer Samuel Florman [16], for example, argued that Smith College would never offer an engineering major because its students were too upper class to get their hands dirty. Putting aside the fact that history has proved him wrong in Smith’s case, it is true that many private liberal arts colleges, which have traditionally attracted students from elite socioeconomic backgrounds, do not offer engineering as a major. Engineering is offered widely at the more affordable (and far larger) land-grant state universities, which attract more working-class students. There are historical reasons for this development, related to the evolution of the profession embedded in the military and mass-production industries [17], discussed further below. At the same time, engineering’s hands-on nature and professional orientation make it less attractive to many elite private colleges. Whether this class pattern holds true today and whether it holds true for women is unclear. A 1970s examination of factors in Lehigh students’ choice of major, with a cohort of just under 200 students nearly evenly divided among engineering women, engineering men, nonengineering women, and nonengineering men, found that upward mobility was the main factor for both men’s and women's choice of engineering as a major, with 60% of the women engineers in the study mentioning job opportunities as their main influence [18]. Additionally, parental income was lower among the engineering women in the study than in any of the other groups. At the same time, 29% of the engineering women in the study had an engineer father (indicating middle-class background), and 44% of the engineering women reported having a “close relative” (father, brother, and/or uncle)

engineering and social justice  53

who was an engineer. Other studies have suggested that engineering is solidly a middle-class major. Sociologists Judith McIlwee and J. Gregg Robinson [19] surveyed nearly 400 electrical and mechanical engineering graduates (classes of 1976 through 1985) of two public engineering schools in southern California, finding that most came from middle-class backgrounds, with 76.8% of men and 82.8% of women (78% of all respondents) reporting their father’s occupation as professional, managerial, technical, or sales. Anthropologist Cynthia Foor’s ethnography of a first-generation multi-minority female college student from an economically disadvantaged background emphasizes the importance of class as an obstacle to the student's success and feeling of belonging in engineering, suggesting that the major has taken on a more middle-class ethos [20]. None of these studies are comprehensive or definitive, and one cannot draw conclusions from them. More work is sorely needed in this area. The available information tells a complex story of a major that has a reputation for providing a route for upward mobility and thus may seem accessible or desirable to working-class students; however, it may not fulfill this promise when the majority of students come from more privileged backgrounds, which may provide real advantages in a competitive, weed-out engineering culture [20].

3.2.2 Professional or Proletariat? Zussman's sociological study of engineers in two western Massachusetts companies, aptly titled Mechanics of the Middle Class, captures engineering’s place as a “middle-level” occupation [2]. Zussman contrasts two classic arguments in the sociology of labor: one that describes a process of professionalization, in which an occupation takes on the characteristics of the classic professions of law or medicine, and another that describes a process of proletarianization, in which members of an occupation become increasingly alienated from their labor through processes of fragmentation by management. Zussman argues that neither applies to engineering. However, I argue that one can observe elements of each phenomenon in engineering contexts. Zussman argues that engineering does not fit the classic definition of a “profession” because engineers do not possess the kind of autonomy doctors and lawyers classically have enjoyed, rather they are “firmly embedded in a workplace and labor process that continues to be organized by the principles of capitalism” (1–2). He notes that this is part of a larger historical trend, citing sociologist C. Wright Mills’s [21] discussion of the transition from an entrepreneurial society of small farms and firms that once comprised the middle class because they were outside industry to today’s middle-level workers (perhaps including many doctors and lawyers!) who are part of larger industrial (or military–industrial) organizations. With this emergence of large industrial organizations comes a new class of management workers, nonowners charged with the administrative work of a firm and the management of the workers. Zussman notes that these workers occupy another kind of middle—it is their job, on the one hand, to “manage” labor, and yet they act as labor themselves,

54  engineering and social justice

challenging industrial organizations in different ways, for example, by fighting to retain autonomy in their positions. Many engineering jobs fit this middle notion, part management, part laborer. Marx’s critique of capitalism [22] predicts that “Capitalist production, therefore, develops technology, and the combining together of various processes into a social whole, only by sapping the original sources of all wealth—the soil and the laborer.” The engineer seems to function in this system as technology developer; however, the key question is whether engineers control the “means of production.” While engineers may create the means of production, the extent to which they ultimately control it varies. In most cases, engineers do not control the means of production because they are beholden to the desires of management, CEOs, shareholders, the market, etc. Zussman points out that engineers have limited or no ownership of the products or processes they design (some may have certain intellectual property rights or stock options). Engineers are generally richly rewarded by those who do control the means of production; in fact, they are a primary vehicle through which the means of production is accomplished. Because engineers have the ability to create the means of production, they do retain some elements of control. First, they can design some control into an artifact or process. Second, Zussman suggests that engineers often trade on their “career capital” of education, experience, and reputation, which cannot be taken away. In this sense, they do not fit the traditional model of proletarianization. Historically, engineers have played a major role in enacting the process of automation, in which skilled labor is replaced by lower-cost machines. For example, robots are often used on automobile assembly lines, or automated voice messaging is used for customer service telephone functions. Automation often works against the interest of laborers; thus, they face the elimination of their jobs, which is often accompanied by a distinct lack of opportunities for retraining to other, more secure, higher paying positions. Related to automation, engineers also play a key role in proletarianization, in which skilled labor is divided and managed, taking away the laborer’s autonomy and ability to set hours or location of work as well as creating a division of labor that alienates the laborer from the product, as they become responsible for and expert in the production of only a small part of the whole. One can view the professionalization of engineers as an attempt to resist proletarianization. Zussman traces the emergence of engineering in the United States, from its early enjoyment of high status in the nineteenth century, based on the long specialized apprenticeships and entrepreneurship of mechanical engineers, or in the elite training of civil engineers practicing as independent professionals. As demand grew for engineers within industry, land-grant colleges began offering degrees in engineering, and more and more people pursued engineering, but the nature of the job had changed. While the field was now far more open to students from poorer backgrounds, the autonomy and entrepreneurship opportunities had dwindled, with most jobs embedded in large corporations. In response to this, engineers began to “professionalize”—to form professional socie­

engineering and social justice  55

ties, institute codes of ethics, insist on licensing and educational standards, and argue for a stronger position within industrial organizations. Engineering historian Matt Wisnioski [9] notes that the debates about the role of scientists and engineers under modern capitalism existed within the SESPA/Science for the People, with one chapter casting scientists as workers, suffering from the alienation of labor by others who control the means of production, while another chapter critiqued scientists as part of the bourgeoisie, in need of liberation from the establishment in order to truly serve the needs of the people. It is very important that we understand the dual nature of this relationship and recognize how both dynamics are occurring, at times simultaneously, for it holds the key to developing strategies of resistance.

3.2.3 Revolutionary Design? Engineers occasionally have sought to be revolutionary actors, using their technological designs. Rudolf Diesel, for example, designed his engine out of concern for the working class. His goal was to create an engine that was accessible to small businesses and could run on any fuel and scale to any size, and not be reliant on large amounts of capital that made steam engines the purview of only large rich companies [23]. The subsequent broad use of the Diesel engine in many different contexts raises an important question about how much power rests in engineering design: what are the limits of design in controlling the means of production?

3.2.4 Exploitive Management Roles In some cases, engineers take on managerial roles that exploit labor, as the engineer manager makes decisions that trade off benefits, worker safety, environmental impact, and other concerns against a solely economic bottom line. The actions of Robert E. Murray, operator of the Crandall Canyon Mine that collapsed in Utah on August 6, 2007, killing six miners and three rescue workers, are a stark example of the ways in which “loyalty to the bottom line”—a common value in engineering—becomes merely a disguise for greed and an excuse for unjust management and uncompassionate relations with miners and the public. The mining operations at Crandall Canyon were a revisit to an old site originally mined in the middle of the twentieth century. On the first pass, miners had removed what coal they could, and left behind pillars of coal as structural support. Decades later, Murray Energy sought to remove additional coal from the mine by targeting the pillars, a process known as “retreat mining” because the structural instabilities created by mining the pillars requires work crews to “retreat” toward the mine entrance as they work [24]. In addition to the inherent risks involved in retreat mining, there were safety concerns at Crandall Canyon Mine prior to the collapse, including several Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) citations in 2006 and a “bounce” in March 2007, in which parts of the walls

56  engineering and social justice

and ceiling fell in near the north barrier pillar. As a result, the company closed that area of the mine, but decided at a meeting 10 days later to recommence mining operations nearby at the south barrier pillar. The August collapse occurred just 900 feet south of the site of the “bounce” in March. Although Robert Murray denied having known of the bounce, meeting minutes (which he legally fought to suppress) reveal that he did know about the incident, which was not reported to MSHA in violation of federal reporting requirements [25]. The U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions [26: 7] found in its review that “Murray Energy was operating a dangerous mine in a potentially dangerous manner, was lax about or hostile to safety, and was bullying a compliant MSHA. . . .These problems resulted from a cavalier attitude toward safety among senior management.” Murray contends that he has the best interest of miners at heart and makes much of his working-class history to this end. He comes from a family of miners going back three generations in Ohio. Murray himself worked in a mine before attending engineering school at Ohio State, after which he worked for 30 years at North American Coal, ultimately rising through the ranks to become CEO before leaving to found his own company, Murray Energy [24]. In stark contrast to his declarations of safety-mindedness is Murray’s refusal to take responsibility for his decisions and their consequences. For example, he claimed against all seismological evidence that an earthquake caused the mine collapse [27]. He denied that he was conducting retreat mining at the mine, despite holding government permits to do exactly that. In fact, at the August 7, 2007 press conference, he used an interview question about retreat mining as an opportunity to rail against MSHA officials and the United Mine Workers [27,28]: Number one, I wish you would take the word “retreat mining” out of your vocabulary. Those were words invented by Davitt McAteer, Oppegard, who are lackeys for the United Mine Workers and officials at the United Mine Workers. They would like to organize this coal mine. You people don’t understand that. Despite this diatribe against worker safety advocates, Murray sees himself as a miner and seems to believe he has the miners’ interests at heart. “I am a coal miner,” he said. “I have responsibility for this rescue. I am not a professional in talking to you or Americans. I am a professional in talking to miners in distress” [24]. While Murray recognized his lack of public relations skills, he did not seem to be aware of his inability to communicate with miners’ families, evidenced in an interview with John Ytsdie on National Public Radio [29]: John Ytsdie: “Let me ask you this, Mr. Murray. Many of the families of the trapped miners are angered over the suspension of efforts to find them. One of them, as I understand

engineering and social justice  57

it, threw a dollar bill at you as sort of a symbolic act suggesting that you had given up on them.” Bob Murray: “It’s unfortunate that many of the trapped miners’ families really don’t understand and are totally irrational at this point. And I can’t continue to try to make people that are very emotional—and rightly so—understand the technology of coal mining.” Murray packages out-and-out greed as mere engineering practicality and ultimate concern for the bottom line—values consistent with the worldviews of most engineers. He uses his technical expertise to shield himself and his company from criticism, arguing that the problem is that upset families of missing or dead coal miners do not understand technology. Or as he opined inappropriately in a press conference about the search for the miners, presenting wild speculation as fact: “We produce a product that is essential to the standard of living of every American . . . without coal to manufacture our electricity, our products will not compete in the global marketplace. . . . and people on fixed incomes will not be able to pay their electric bills . . . and every one of these global warming bills introduced in congress today eliminates the coal industry, and will increase your electric rates four to five-fold” [27]. Murray uses his expertise to advocate for increased profits for himself, his company, and the coal industry, in the middle of questions about miners feared dead, revealing both a lack of compassion and a deep cognitive dissonance in which he denies scientific realities such as global climate change in order to justify his work and its consequences. Despite his statements empathizing with mine workers or stating that he has mine safety at the center of his thinking, it is apparent that he has other things on his mind, and other values guide Murray’s decisions about mine safety and labor. Without a clear commitment to social justice, the engineering profession serves these interests and these values by default.

3.2.5 One Countertrend: Rethinking the Engineering Design Process In marked contrast to this modus operandi, Catalano and Baillie [30] propose an alternative approach to engineering design that takes into account the impact of engineering on workers and their families. In a piece that proposes an entirely new paradigm for engineering design based upon a variety of peace and social justice considerations, they present an example of the design of a grape harvester that threatens to displace workers by automating the harvesting process traditionally done by hand. By asking about not only the problem definition and technical aspects of the solution but also the impacts on farm workers and their way of life, they arrive at different crossroads: one in which there are no easy answers, and one in which the way forward might involve seeking new solutions with the involvement of the farm workers themselves.

58  engineering and social justice

3.3

MATERIALISM/CONSUMERISM

Anthropologist and engineering historian Gary Downey [17] argues that engineering’s close ties to industry in the United States date back to the 1870s, when the emergence of high-volume, low-cost production produced a demand for a different kind of engineer. Prior to the Civil War, the models of engineering preparation included an apprenticeship model geared toward talented elites, and a formal military education tailored to the needs of the state. As Downey argues, neither model was suitable for the new needs of industry; government involvement in industry was to be avoided, eliminating military-trained engineers, and the shop model produced more entrepreneurial focused engineers, not appropriate for industry's emergent mass production model. The land-grant universities thus emerged with specific missions to educate large numbers of working-class students including engineers for industry. Downey argues that this responsiveness of the engineering profession to industry, tailoring engineering education to meet industry’s changing needs, can be traced throughout the twentieth century in the periodic reports on engineering education. Consumerist ideas infiltrated engineering to such an extent that engineering education itself reflects a factory model, which Hacker [3] notes was, in turn, influenced heavily by a military model. She quotes from the Wickenden Report on engineering education: Engineering education reflects our national genius for quantity production. Pressed to get a maximum result in a minimum of time, engineering educators have borrowed, half unconsciously, from the management methods of industry. The essence of the scheme consists in first visualizing the process as a whole. Then dividing it into major steps in a logical progression and finally breaking the work down into small units to be done in a definite sequence, under prearranged conditions and with the materials supplied precisely when needed and in the most convenient form, the task sequence to be carried out under close supervision, with continuous inspection and grading of piece parts, and the rewards to be paid in terms of a standard task with quality bonus [31: 109 cited in 3: 70]. Engineering education and practice is steeped in reductionism not for its own sake, but to the ends of consumption. Today, discussions of diversity or impending shortages of engineers continue to employ industrial language of “pipeline” and “throughput,” reflecting and perpetuating engineering education’s general ignorance and devaluing of relationships in the educational process [32]. The influence of industry on engineering education today remains obvious. The ubiquity of corporate funding to support academic research surely influences the questions pursued, if not the results obtained. Chaired professorships and buildings carry the names of corporations. National accreditation criteria are set by assembling panels of corporate executives to provide input on what

engineering and social justice  59

kind of engineers they need. Individual engineering programs assemble similar advisory boards to provide tailored input for a more intimate relationship between a department or institution and particular industries or corporations. The rationale for this heavy influence is simple, practical, matterof-fact, and unquestioned: engineering educators cultivate relationships with industry, and industry cultivates relationships with academia because industry hires engineering talent. The notion that it could be otherwise, or that engineering could be more than just this, is not widely entertained. What happens when engineers are tailor-made for industry? History suggests some provocative answers. As industrial trends influenced American engineering education, the “products” of these industrial education processes in turn create new models of mass production and consumption. Cultural historian and writer Giles Slade [33] traces the development of disposable products and planned obsolescence to encourage repetitive consumption (and keep production rolling), building on journalist Vance Packard’s work [34] that was perhaps the first to indict engineers for intentionally marketing shoddy products in order to sell more (e.g., General Electric’s light bulbs with infamously short lives). Engineers play a critical role in this process, as innovators and developers of new (or at least new-looking) designs. Slade profiles Alfred Sloan, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)-educated electrical engineer who saw the advantage in annual style updates to General Motors cars, developing the creation of “psychological obsolescence” which proved more valuable than technological innovation for selling cars. By contrast, Ford’s strategy to maintain quality in order to earn consumer loyalty was a colossal failure. Today, Slade observes these trends amplified with the technological and psychological obsolescence of computers and cell phones, creating piles of electronic waste. In the electronics industry, planned obsolescence is not a dirty phrase but an accepted reality [35]. Moore’s Law predicts that the number of transistors on a chip doubles every year and a half, processing speed increases at a similar pace, software developers follow suit, and consumers feel that they must keep pace and buy the next best thing long before their chips wear out. This aspiration of endless consumption, and the broadening of innovation to include marketing as well as technical concerns, is found in other industries as well. Consider some of the lessons described in Winning with the P&G 99, a book written by a Procter & Gamble (P&G) brand manager [36]. Lesson 11 reads: “The best is never good enough. Once you have improved a product, improve it again” (39). P&G historically invested much in research and development (R&D), and thus cites the innovations in Crest toothpaste—first with stannous fluoride, then sodium fluoride, then tartar control—as improvements that keep profits rolling in. But P&G is well known as much for its branding and advertising as for its R&D, another way to make products new and improved, and needing to be replaced. Thus, lesson 17 reads “A brand can’t stand still. A brand should be a dynamic, constantly changing entity. It should evolve as consumer needs evolve, changing the way it satisfies consumer needs” (52).

60  engineering and social justice

Journalist Alicia Swasy [37] documented the lengths to which P&G would go to gather information on consumers, in the name of developing better brands and advertising campaigns. Tactics included home visits in which women were observed shampooing and using toilet paper (do they crumple or fold?), snooping through friends’ cupboards when invited as a house or dinner guest, and removing any competitor’s products they found, etc. Swazy relates an anecdote in which one employee jokingly proposed paying trash collection companies to provide reports on consumers’ garbage contents; the boss loved it and passed it up the line, not recognizing the parody. Given the intricate relationship between engineering and industry’s methods and goals, it may not be surprising then that many engineers seem to have absorbed the ideas of neoliberalism (free-market extremism that opposes government regulation of industry and trade, collective bargaining, and government provision of social services), almost without realizing they have done so. As one engineering textbook put it in the first section of its introductory chapter “What’s it all about?:” “It’s all about money. Engineers create wealth. It’s really as simple as that” [38: 1]. When this attitude manifests itself on a global level, what will happen to the planet, to indigenous communities the world over, and to the world’s poorest? Because engineers are educated primarily in technical depth, they may accept at face value pop theories from economics and other fields. Before seriously considering the pros and cons of neoliberalism or globalization, many engineers have already accepted their inevitability and have moved on to what we often find more interesting—problem solving within these constraints. Having been taught that it is our job to respond to market forces, not drive them, engineers take little action to change the structural realities in which we work. Many engineers naively believe (and have a vested interest in believing) that engineering ultimately raises the standard of living for all and that engineering developments that displace some jobs will simply create others. If we are to be concerned with social justice, we must put this kind of blissful ignorance aside. Technological developments that can revolutionize life for those who enjoy access can also contribute to a widening gap between haves and have-nots. The global digital divide (and the U.S. domestic digital divide) is just one example of this phenomenon (see Figure 3.3).

3.3.1 Green Consumerism The environmental impacts of previous decades of industrial development in the United States have been devastating to communities and have differentially affected communities of color and poor communities. Federal regulation introduced in the twentieth century in the United States and elsewhere began to place limits on the pollution of water, air, and soil and created some accountability for polluters to clean up previous messes they created. In response to public concern and to technology-forcing regulations, green engineering has cropped up in many sectors of the economy to reduce the environmental impacts of production

engineering and social justice  61

FIGURE 3.3: Global Digital Divide (after Steger [85], using United Nations Development Report Data from 2001 and 2006 accessed from http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/data/, Fall, 2007.

and consumption. Revolutionary ecological thinkers, such as Paul Hawken and Amory and Hunter Lovins [39] or Bill McDonough and Michael Braungart [40], challenge our thinking about engineering processes, pushing us out of certain boxes, telling us it is possible to create zero-waste processes and the like. For example, reconceptualizing products as services can change our focus on materialism and consumption. Textiles such as carpeting need not necessarily be a commodity we consume: purchase, use for a time, and then throw away. Instead, these textiles might be designed in such a way that we rent them for a time and at the end of one use they are removed by the service provider, cleaned, or recycled into new carpeting and placed in another home [40]. Once the producer becomes the provider of a service, there is now an incentive to design textiles to be more durable so they can be reused, or completely recyclable into the same textile product. As revolutionary as this is, it must be noted that many green engineering proponents do not necessarily propose a shift away from our high-consumption, no-holds-barred capitalist framework. Perhaps it is out of a sense of political expediency, or perhaps they just plain believe in free-market

62  engineering and social justice

principles. McDonough, for example, is clear to minimize the value of environmental regulation (most likely to win the favor of industrial clients), even as technology-forcing environmental regulation clearly created many of the situations from which he has profited [41]. Surely this movement can and will reduce the environmental impact of goods that might otherwise have been even more harmful. However, the profit motive may ultimately limit the good this movement can do. First, the bottom line can limit the technologies engineers are able to explore and develop. Second, the profit motive might spur unnecessary consumption that, if prevented, would have caused even less environmental harm. From bottled water to organic cigarettes, eco-marketing is everywhere, inducing consumption to fill manufactured needs. It takes a well-trained eye to locate those items that will actually make a positive impact. The savviest consumer, of course, will recognize that often the biggest impact is not to buy a product at all. Ecological sustainability has become such an important design feature; some engineers will exploit it in ways that stretch credulity. In 2007, Russia announced it had developed a thermobaric bomb with four times the explosive power of the United States’ Massive Ordinance Air Blast, making it the largest nonnuclear bomb in the world. The Associated Press [42] wire report paraphrased Alexander Rukshin of the Russian military as saying that “unlike a nuclear weapon, the bomb doesn’t hurt the environment.” In the military or in the market, if increased consumption is the measure of success and growth, engineers’ abilities to realize new sustainable technologies will be seriously compromised. Our production and consumption relies more and more on energy use. As globalization intensifies, so do the energy costs associated with transportation in production and distribution. As U.S. energy use relies heavily on foreign oil, the link between consumption and militarism is transparent. However plain and direct, this is not the only route that links engineering to militarism.

3.4

MILITARISM

The profession of engineering has long been closely tied to military endeavors. As noted in the last chapter, the origin of the word engineering is based on military technology [43], hence the distinction of civil engineering as nonmilitary or civilian in nature. The first engineering school in the United States was founded at West Point, and similarly the European polytechnics have their roots as military academies [3]. Science historian Ken Alder [44] details the role of engineering in the design and mass production of military gun technology in the French Revolution. Michael Horowitz of the Hudson Institute and Joe Carson, a professional engineer, [45] note in the journal of the National Society of Professional Engineers that “the engineering profession and government are ‘joined at the hip.’ Engineers create infrastructure for governments as well as weapons of war; in almost every country, government contractors are the largest employers of engineers.”

engineering and social justice  63

This statement stands to reason. However, it is interesting to note that in conducting the research for this book, specific data that confirm this assertion were not readily available. After contacting engineering professional societies of all stripes like the National Academy of Engineering, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology, including numerous industry representatives and academics, I found that the data on exactly how many engineers are involved in defense work were not directly available. What does it mean that no one appears to be tracking (or releasing) these data? Can we examine the data that are available to learn what we can about engineers’ relationship to the military? Dependence of engineers on military employment is a theme in many sources. Hacker [3: 71] states that the defense budget is “the main variable in statistical models predicting engineering ‘manpower’ needs.” In the early 1990s, there was concern that engineering labor opportunities were shrinking because of downsizing at the Department of Defense (DoD). The NSF [46] noted that “Although scientists and engineers comprise only 3 to 4 percent of the total U.S. labor force, they account for a higher proportion—8 to 9 percent—of all defense-related civilian employment.” The report also noted that in 1987, 16% of engineers were engaged in defense-related work. This number dropped to 13% in 1992 due to budget cuts, raising concern. In fact, these numbers may be higher, given that data were based on a self-report survey of engineers asking them to select the area to which they devoted the most time in their jobs [47]. Many projects with defense applications might fit more readily into a different category, e.g., manufacturing. Echoing the NSF report, the National Research Council [48] considered the impact of the defense sector’s growth on nondefense engineering jobs. As of 1984, approximately 20% of all engineering jobs were sponsored by the DoD. Also, 60% of Aerospace engineers, over 40% of systems engineers, and nearly 30% of electrical and computer engineers held DoD-sponsored positions (74). Of course, defense funding levels have increased since the early 1990s due to the war in Iraq, among other things, relieving the concern about the impact of defense cuts on engineering jobs. More recent discussions reveal a shortage of U.S. engineers and competitiveness concerns raised by projected shortages [49]. Why, in a globalized world, among people who otherwise support neoliberal policies and the outsourcing of labor, would we see such strong concern about filling engineering jobs? So what if India or China produces qualified engineers for U.S. companies to employ? The clear “so what” is that many, many engineering jobs are defense-related and require security clearances and U.S. citizenship. Looking at this another way, can we examine the overlap between the largest defense contractors and the largest engineering employers? One would think this would involve a simple Internet search. Interestingly, while the list of defense contractors is easy to come by, a list of the nation’s largest engineering employers could not be found. No one—not the professional societies, not the National Academies, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics, not the companies themselves seem to

64  engineering and social justice

keep (or are willing to release) data on who the largest employers of engineers in the United States are. Still, the top 10 list of defense contractors does read a lot like an engineering job fair listing (Table 3.1). Additionally, executives at both Raytheon [51] and Lockheed Martin—numbers 5 and 1, respectively, of Table 3.1—have claimed in public addresses to be one of the largest employers of engineers in the United States (How do they know this?). According to an executive vice president at Lockheed Martin [52]: We are the largest single supplier to the U.S. Department of Defense and the largest provider of information technology services to the federal government. We also happen to be one of the nation’s largest employers of engineers and scientists, with about 50,000 of our 130,000 employees around the world holding some sort of technical degree or credential. To sustain this critical mass of talent, we will hire approximately 9,000 engineers this year, including 3,700 new graduates. In fact, in any given year, Lockheed Martin hires about one of every 20 engineering baccalaureates in the United States—four to five percent of the entire nation’s undergraduate output.

TABLE 3.1:  Top defense contractors for fiscal year 2006 [50] Company name

Award ($ billion)

1. Lockheed Martin

26.6

2. Boeing

20.3

3. Northrop Grumman

16.6

4. General Dynamics

10.5

5. Raytheon

10.1

6. Halliburton

6.1

7. L-3 Communications

5.2

8. BAE Systems

4.7

9. United Technologies

4.5

10. Science Applications International

3.2

engineering and social justice  65

Is it really a coincidence that the largest defense contractor would “happen to be” one of the largest employers of engineers? Searching Dun and Bradstreet’s Million Dollar Database [53] for the number of engineer employees at firms in the “engineering services” category (NAICS code 541330) also reveals a strong relationship to defense (Table 3.2). It is important to note that the specific North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code searched is for “engineering services” and does not capture the whole of engineering, which would be listed under many different codes, often lumped in with work that would not be considered engineering. Although an incomplete measure, it does offer one slice of engineering employment data. Of the 22 companies in this NAICS code listing with at least 2000 engineer employees, 13 were top 100 defense contractors. Among the top 5, the two that are not listed in the top 100 for fiscal 2006 (Solectron and Westinghouse) still have strong reputations as defense contractors. In fact, Contract Manufacturing Solutions Specialists [54] decries that globalization pressures have caused many defense contractors to overlook domestic manufacturers such as Solectron in favor of cheaper manufacturing abroad. Looking at this question another way, of the seven companies identified in the IBIS World Industry Report with the largest share of the engineering services market in 2007, six of them are top 100 DoD contractors for fiscal year 2006 [50,55]. The seventh is Fluor, Inc., which is involved in the cleanup of the Hanford nuclear waste site, funded by the Department of Energy. Hanford was the location at which plutonium was developed for the nation’s earliest nuclear weapons. Thus, it is important to note that some engineering firms that are not defense contractors in the formal sense are nevertheless involved in military work. Examining the top employers of large universities producing many engineering graduates also reveals important linkages. Data on recent graduates’ employment from Ohio State [56] and the University of Illinois [57] (selected based on size of school and publication of data) revealed that the DoD itself was the largest employer, and many defense contractors (including General Electric, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, United Technologies, and Northrop Grumman from the top 10 list) were among the top employers. Also rounding out their lists were companies that are likely subcontractors. For example, Dell computers is #50 on the list of contractors for 2006, but if Dell computers are delivered, one can be sure that Microsoft and Intel will, in turn, benefit. Similarly, a contract with large construction contractors like Halliburton may result in subcontracts to manufacturers of construction equipment such as Caterpillar. Following the chains of production to their ends would reveal that a great deal of industries and all flavors of engineers are represented. Militarism is more readily recognized as affecting mechanical and aerospace engineers, as well as electrical and computer engineers, but examining the list of top defense contractors demonstrates representation across engineering disciplines. Chemical/food engineering firms P&G and

10. Fluor Corp.

9. Southwest Research Institute

Irving, TX

San Antonio, TX

Scottsdale, AZ

4

8. General Dynamics C4 Systems

General Dynamics

Cambridge, MA

7. Dehon Inc.

San Diego, CA

6. Science Applications Intl.

10

Monroeville, PA

5. Westinghouse Electric Co LLC

Houston, TX

Halliburton

4. Brown & Root Inc.

6

Bath, ME

4

General Dynamics

Groton, CT

2600

2778

3400

3500

4300

4500

5000

6000

6700

7900

Location Engineering of site or employees headquarters

3. Bath Iron Works Corp.

4

DoD contractor rank FY 2006

El Paso, TX

General Dynamics

Parent company

2. Solectron Corp.

1. Electric Boat Corp.

Company name

TABLE 3.2:  Million dollar database listing of NAICS code 541330 sorted by number of employees

66  engineering and social justice

27 59

Parsons Corporation Halliburton

16. Bechtel Group Inc.

17. Parsons International Ltd.

18. Kellogg Brown & Root

22. Foster Wheeler Ltd.

21. Mitre Corp.

48

Clinton, NJ

Bedford, MA

Pasadena, CA

20. Parsons Corp.

59

Windsor, CT

Arlington, VA

Pasadena, CA

San Francisco, CA

Tullahoma, TN

Los Angeles, CA

Shawnee Mission, KS

19. ALSTOM Power Inc. Parsons Corporation

100

15. Aerospace Testing Alliance

6

47

14. Aerospace Corp.

13. Black & Veatch Corp.

Houston, TX

6

12. Halliburton Nus Corp.

Halliburton

Franklin, TN

11. Nissan North America Inc.

2000

2000

2000

2000

2000

2000

2100

2100

2313

2392

2400

2500

engineering and social justice  67

68  engineering and social justice

Pepsi are on the list of top 100 defense contractors, with funds going to subsidiaries such as Sunny Delight and Quaker Oats. Firms strongly associated with petroleum/chemical engineering such as Exxon Mobil are on the list. Numerous construction engineering firms are on the list, including Halliburton, CH2M Hill, Jacobs, and Parsons, and the list reveals top 100 contracts with transportation firms, notably Federal Express and United Parcel Service. This system of mutually beneficial relationships is what was popularly known in the 1960s as the “military–industrial complex” after President Eisenhower [58] and C. Wright Mills [59] brought the term to prominence. Finally, examining business data on where the largest numbers of engineers live in the U.S. (as a proportion of the population) reveals yet more linkages with defense. Forbes [60] listed cities over 345,000 with the highest concentration of engineers. Huntsville, AL topped the list due to the presence of Redstone Arsenal (housing the Army Aviation and Missile Command, and the Marshall Space Flight Center) and Cummings Research Park, host to many science and technology companies including all five of the top defense contractors for 2006 and many more of the top 100 [50,61]. Melbourne, FL was number two, nestled along the Space Coast and home to General Electric (#14), Harris Corporation (#25), Northrop Grumman (#3), and Rockwell Collins (#36) [50,62]. San Jose, CA, the next highest concentration of engineers, of course boasts a large number of computer technology firms with large numbers of employees such as Adobe and Cisco Systems, but defense contractor IBM (#97) and Lockheed Martin (#1) are also on the city’s list of largest employers [50,63].

3.4.1 Research Funding and Federal Policy Making The history of governmental engineering (and science) research funding is deeply linked to the military. Roger Geiger [64], Distinguished Professor of Education at Penn State, traces the history of the defense establishment in funding science and supporting the development of universities post World War II. Immediately after the war, federal support for university research came almost entirely from defense agencies including the Manhattan Project, which became the Atomic Energy Commission, the Office of Naval Research, or the DoD itself. Excluding the life sciences, which were funded largely by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Department of Agriculture, defense funds accounted for 96% of research funding in universities in 1954 and 84% in 1958. For FY 2006, the federal R&D budget in science and engineering (including the life sciences) was 59% defense-related [65]. During World War II, Geiger [64] explains that several top universities had contracts to engage in weapons research. After the war, many of these same institutions set up contract research centers on or near their campuses, in which the military agencies determined the scope and direction of research, and sponsored the research monetarily. Other laboratories, particularly those with obvious defense applications (e.g., in aerospace engineering and electronics), developed close ties and primary sponsorship from defense agencies. By 1970, sentiment against the Vietnam War led to universities distancing themselves from defense agencies; at the same, time Congress passed an

engineering and social justice  69

amendment limiting defense’s involvement in university research to those areas where support was directly related to military application. While this may have somewhat chilled the relationship, engineering still relies heavily on defense research funding. It is important to also include contributions from agencies that are not explicitly labeled defense-related but whose work clearly is relevant for military endeavors. In particular, the work of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is largely relevant to the military due to its emphasis on propulsion technology; the work of the Department of Energy has long been relevant because of its focus on nuclear technology; and the work of the nation's many intelligence agencies is relevant because of their direct role in national defense. The recent addition of the Department of Homeland Security suggests new avenues for defense-related work that might employ engineers. These contributions are far more difficult to estimate because some portion of each agency’s work may not be military-related. Lucena [32] chronicles the process of “policymaking to create scientists and engineers,” marked by the presentation of some threat to the nation (which changes over time), followed by lobbying for federal funds and programs to address the threat, which further the goals of science and engineering. In the 1960s, the threat was communism; the response was development of weapons technologies as part of the arms race and development of space technologies for symbolic competition in space. In the 1980s, the threat was Japan’s emerging technological economy, and engineers were enlisted to compete by making new technological advancements. More recently, the war on terror has resulted in engineering directed toward the development of new information technologies and other programs in terrorism prevention and response.

3.4.2 Military Cultures in Engineering In addition to the more material associations in which engineers’ work is funded by military institutions, producing military products, there are deep cultural associations between the national defense industry and engineering, in terms of both education and practice. Hacker [3] reviews the influence of military institutions on many aspects of society, including manufacturing processes, labor processes, the pedagogy and content of engineering education, socialization of boys in organizations such as the Boy Scouts, and more generally in the construction of masculinity. Engineering plays a central role in Hacker's analysis as engineering education, with its strong military influence, serves as a vehicle for establishing a particular version of masculinity that serves the ends of military institutions. Hacker [3: 56] emphasizes the role of discipline in engineering education, describing events such as having 10 points taken off a problem set for not stapling the pages, acceptance of throwing up after tests as a routine occurrence, rigid rules for working in teams or for doing problems under severe time constraints, etc.:

70  engineering and social justice

Everything we learned to value, the lifestyle we came to desire, the prestige, income and status over others, all were perceived possible only by passing the tests. This daily experience required control of sensuality, the emotions, passion, one's very physical rhythms. Hacker attributes the hierarchies and authoritarian culture of engineering to its military roots. Philosopher James Crombie [66: 144] employs Lewis Mumford's analysis of “megamachines”—technics focused on establishing centralized control—to examine how the war and mining industries, and their political and economic contexts, produced a particular set of values around technology, society, and ecology, guided away from concerns we might identify as being related to peace and social justice, in particular, those that “sustain and enhance life”: In short, according to Mumford, the often unfortunate forms of social organization which were eventually applied in the factory were first developed for the army and the mine. And the first factories organized according to the principles of mass production produced goods destined to be consumed by armies, such as uniforms and weapons. (142) Crombie, using Mumford, illustrates the close linkages between mining and war, as munitions and armor rely on mined materials. The production of munitions further served as an avenue for profit making by financiers. Crombie argues that when the valuation of goods relies solely on how rare a commodity is and what it takes to acquire it, it is no surprise that economic theory develops as classical economic theory has, failing to account adequately for social and environmental externalities, natural capital, or future generations. One can identify deep-seated militarism (not to mention nationalism, which often follows) in popular engineering textbooks. Consider this passage, which seeks to explain the concept of entropy in thermodynamics using a military analogy: Having a disorganized (high-entropy) army is like having no army at all. It is no coincidence that the command centers of any armed forces are among the primary targets during a war. One army that consists of ten divisions is ten times more powerful than ten armies each consisting of a single division. Likewise, one country that consists of ten states is more powerful than ten countries, each consisting of a single state. The United States would not be such a powerful country if there were fifty independent countries in its place instead of a single country with fifty states . . . The old cliché ‘divide and conquer’ can be rephrased as ‘increase the entropy and conquer.’” [67: 355, emphasis in original]

engineering and social justice  71

This passage is clearly problematic in its nationalistic sentiments, but it is also problematic from a thermodynamic perspective. Setting aside the concern about using such analogies for teaching entropy to undergraduates, and the flawed details of their argument (how does coordinating separate entities decrease entropy, compared with a single centralized force?), it is extremely one-sided to teach a “high entropy = bad, low entropy = good” mentality, particularly as a military strategy. One of the lessons of 9-11 is the vulnerability that comes with having a highly organized economic center. And one of the lessons of U.S. occupations of Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq should be that the relative decentralization of power and organization in those societies carries a certain advantage against military might.

3.4.3 Engineering Peace Significant public resistance of engineers to militarism in engineering has a history that dates back at least to the 1960s, when concerns about the military–industrial complex, in general, and about the Vietnam War, in particular, became widespread. By that time, scientists—physicists, in particular—had already begun to raise similar questions in the wake of the development of the nuclear bomb. Wisnioski [9] profiles three different approaches used in the 1960s by (mostly) academic scientists and engineers to resist militarism in engineering. In one case, Steve Slaby, a civil engineering professor at Princeton, questioned the work of some of his colleagues and supported student protests against the Institute for Defense Analysis enclave behind the engineering building on campus. He organized and taught classes on the social contexts and implications of technology. In the second case, the fluid mechanics laboratory at MIT, upon deciding that too much of their funding was defense-related, sought to “restore balance” by taking on fluid mechanics projects in humanitarian areas. In the third case, Wisnioski profiles the group SESPA/Science for the People. Their activities took on the flavor of more overt protest, as they staged actions at the annual meeting of the AAAS. Wisnioski contrasts their activities to that of the Union of Concerned Scientists (and one could add Pugwash and other science policy interest groups), which formed largely to resist militarism in science, but chose to work within institutions, as a policy interest group, capitalizing on their expertise as scientists and engineers. What Wisnioski’s work evidences is a rich history of resistance with multiple strategies used in varying contexts. These are not histories that are regularly taught to engineers, but their discovery can provide both hope and concrete ideas for how one might proceed in response to a number of circumstances. In the 1980s and early 1990s, impending cuts in the military budget, combined with the dubious “Star Wars” project championed by Reagan, caused increased examination of the close relationship between the institutions of science and engineering and military institutions. Jonathan Feldman [68], former Program Director of the National Commission for Economic Conversion,

72  engineering and social justice

discusses the potential for defense conversion and cites several cases of academic dissent from military funding of academic research as follows: • • •

•

•

MIT’s biology department voted not to receive any defense funding, only to be pressured by the administration to reverse their decision. A science writer at Wisconsin was fired for exposing research on biological warfare occurring on campus. An assistant professor at Princeton raised his concern in a public television program that three quarters of the research funding in his field (statistics and operations research) was in defense, thus to refuse defense funding would make tenure even more difficult to achieve. An astrophysicist at Rutgers University observed that a petition against Star Wars was signed at much higher rates in chemistry, which receives less defense funding than in engineering, which received much more, or at campuses with low levels of military research vs. high levels. A professor at Swarthmore noted that when research is funded so predominantly by the military, and when faculty teach what they know, engineering education and the jobs students are trained to do are being distorted toward military projects and applications.

Historian Barton C. Hacker [69] underscores the difficulties of resisting military influence identified by Feldman: in reviewing the very volume in which Feldman’s work appeared, Hacker reported that the NSF’s program on ethics was prohibited from funding the conference at which the work was presented due to federal restrictions on funding ethics projects that questioned national defense activities. More recently, civil engineering professor and engineering ethicist Aarne Vesilind [70] hosted a conference and produced a book on Peace Engineering, focused on what engineers’ roles might be in working for peace. Working to eliminate poverty and hunger, to strive toward environmental justice, and to provide better health care, water, and sanitation, locally and around the world, feature prominently in the book. Reform of engineering education at military academies and decision making about weapons research work are suggested options for working within the system. Engineering professor George Catalano [71] proposed to modify the engineering education outcomes for accreditation based on The Integral Model of Education for Peace, Democracy, and Sustainable Development [72], highlighting peace with oneself, with others, and with the planet. This addresses the notion that peace begins in the heart and the home, reaching out toward cross-cultural and cross-national understanding, and ultimately leads to peace with nonhuman life on the planet. Such proposals challenge the status quo in engineering education and help us imagine what is possible if we shift our priorities.

engineering and social justice  73

3.5

COLONIALISM AND GLOBALIZATION

There is no doubt that engineers have played a strong role in development, with many positive impacts for health and human welfare. The provision of clean water and sanitation, technologies for energy, transportation, food production, and countless other innovations has positively impacted many people, enhancing health, independence, and prosperity. At the same time, these advancements occur within social, political, cultural, and economic contexts that can benefit a few at the expense of the many or that can perpetuate structures of power that place one tribe or nation ahead of another. Michael Adas [73], Science and Technology Historian and Abraham E. Voorhees, Professor of History at Rutgers University, argues that technology played a central role in the colonialist “civilizing mission” of European countries in the nineteenth century and later in the “modernizing” efforts of twentieth century colonialists in the United States. Technology was used as a means of controlling environments in Asia, Africa, and other parts of the world, and the perceived need for technological development was, in turn, used to justify colonial activity. When one considers colonialism as connecting military conquest to consumerism through economic development, it may not be surprising that engineering would play a significant role. Here, I consider the key engineering areas of transportation, water and energy, and food production to examine critically the role of engineering in global development.

3.5.1 Transportation Caroline Baillie [74] presents a case study of transportation engineering in the service of British colonialism in nineteenth century India, in which railroads exacerbated rather than relieved famine. The famines were brought on by a complex confluence of forces and events including crop failures that created a grain shortage, thereby increasing prices; market forces and economic policies that discouraged storing of grain in rural areas for times of famine and rather encouraged its movement toward those who could afford to pay exorbitant prices; and improved transportation that allowed grain exports to move to central locations where it could be hoarded by merchants, or even shipped off to England, worsening the scarcity. Millions died in famine after famine, as these conditions recurred in different regions of India, with dire consequences in each instance made worse not only by policy decisions and economic forces but also by technology. In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, World Bank projects have employed engineers in order to design and construct technologies that open new markets for economic development. Attorney and former World Bank insider Bruce Rich [75] details the devastating environmental and cultural impacts of two engineering and economic development projects in Brazil in the 1980s: the trans-Amazonian highway in Polonoroeste and the Carajás project on mining and railroads. The highway opened the door to an onslaught of settlers who burned the rainforest, farmed un-

74  engineering and social justice

til the nutrients were depleted, and resold the land to cattle ranchers and real estate developers. The settlements resulted in the spread of diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis, and measles among settlers and indigenous groups. Many tribal lands were pillaged. The railroad project had even more disastrous effects on rainforest depletion, despite both projects being touted as ecologically sustainable.

3.5.2 Water and Energy Numerous dam projects have led to a variety of problems worldwide including the displacement of people—as many as 50 million in India alone [76], the destruction of cultural history, and the spread of infectious disease. Smith College student Aryn Bowman [77] chronicles the scene at the Tehri Dam in Uttaranchal, India. Bowman describes how the town of Tehri is in the submergence zone, set to be flooded when the dam fills. The Indian government, in order to encourage residents to leave, bulldozed the town in the night (with Caterpillar bulldozers). Bowman said the scene was “a battle zone” and the “scene of a crime . . . perpetrated by the Indian government, foreign funding agencies, transnational construction companies, the water lords, the dominant definition of development, and those who define it” [77: 2]. Bowman describes how women whose lives are so connected to the river have chosen to drown rather than leave. Suez, a French multinational, will transport water from the dam by canal some 200 miles to Delhi, to sell clean water—for profit—to rich city dwellers. Nearby villages will be passed over for water delivery, leaving farmers without irrigation upon which they once relied. This is but one dam in India, one that has received less attention than others such as the Narmada or Sardar Sarovar Dam. However, the same patterns are observed not only in India but around the world. Physicist and ecofeminist Vandana Shiva [78] notes concisely the trouble with dams and other water privatization initiatives: Privatisation of water denies local communities their water rights and access to water in two ways. Firstly, the scarce and limited water resources are diverted, from the poor to the rich, from the countryside to towns, from agriculture to industry leaving water famines where people have no purchasing power, and providing water to those who have destroyed their own water resources through waste and pollution. Secondly, the state itself shifts from its functions in providing welfare to the needy and most marginalised communities to the new function of providing public subsidies for private profits. Small, decentralised rural schemes are starved of both water resources and financial resources. Engineers are clearly essential actors in water privatization and other mechanisms of globalization. Is it acceptable to say that we as engineers only design and build the things we are asked, but

engineering and social justice  75

do not question the motives of those who employ us? As the stakes get higher, are engineers more or less likely to take on the issues raised here?

3.5.3 Food Production Engineers have played a major role in facilitating the Green Revolution in the mid-twentieth century and are playing an even greater role in the biotech revolution in agriculture today. In both cases, a strong narrative about ending hunger and feeding the world masks the reality of large corporations reaping enormous benefits at the expense of local agricultural economies, in many cases creating dependency and increasing poverty. In the case of the green revolution, high-yield crop varieties introduced monocultures that went hand in hand with increased use of chemical technologies such as synthetic fuels, fertilizers, and pesticides. In many places, as production went up, prices went down, making it increasingly difficult for poor farmers to afford the new chemicals and crop varieties. Mechanization brought about by the introduction of heavy farm equipment created job displacement and net job loss [79]. While the green revolution benefited some rich farmers in developing countries and certainly corporations marketing chemical products, it did so at the expense of poor farmers. Often, green revolution advocates attempted to export essentially Western technologies without consideration of social and cultural impact [80]. Finally, the green revolution had serious consequences for public health; for example, increased use of pesticides created dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT)-resistant mosquitoes, significantly reducing the effectiveness of a critical tool in antimalaria campaigns [81]. Biotechnology advocates claim that advances in chemical engineering and biotechnology are necessary in order to meet the world's food needs. Bruce Dixon, editor of the Black Agenda Report, critiques a new $150 million initiative by the Rockefeller and Gates foundations to promote agriculture in Africa. This time, the risks for dependency are even greater, as patent rights for many crops now belong to multinational corporations, who certainly stand to profit from the initiative [82]. Vandana Shiva [83] argues that rather than meeting the world’s food needs, genetically engineered crops are merely introducing increased use of agrichemicals and forcing the abandonment of local farm practices for industrial style farming. She suspects that the plans of multinational companies to meet the world’s food needs seem to coincide a little too closely with their plans to grow profits. Policies, such as Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready Gene Agreement” that keeps farmers from saving seeds or the engineering of sterile seeds to make seed-saving impossible, imposes economic burdens on local farmers around the world and threatens biodiversity with the introduction of global-scale monocultures (and monopolies). Shiva describes cases of what she terms “soy imperialism” by U.S. companies in India, in which local farming and processing businesses for items such as mustard oil gave way to imported soybean oil. Such replacements, occurring all over the world, affect not only local economies but also threaten biodiversity, cultural diversity manifested in local cuisine,

76  engineering and social justice

and cultural and scientific knowledge embodied in local plant-based medicinal practices. Shiva [83] also relates the effort by the American Soybean Association to sell soybean-based pellets shaped and colored to look like a variety of Indian dals—lentils, kidney beans, pigeon peas, etc.—potentially supplanting local farmers, local industries, local economies, local cuisine, and local culture.

3.5.4 Globalization of U.S. Corporate Culture The focus on materialism and consumption in the name of profit-making drives corporations to enter new markets across the globe. Thus, lessons 52–59 of Winning with the P&G 99 [36] focus on globalization of P&G. P&G’s desire to homogenize global consumption is evident in lesson 53, “Create global brands. Seek opportunities to meet universal consumer needs with universal brands” (136) and lesson 56 “One Company; one culture” (143). I quote extensively to provide a sense of the language that reflects P&G’s culture: The cultures of many societies around the world are incompatible with P&G’s culture and the “Procter Way” of conducting its business . . . .In some countries, neither business nor social meetings start on time. In others, meetings begin with a lot of conversation “around” the subject to let everyone participate before getting down to the issues and end with no definitive conclusions, next steps, and commitments. Some cultures are inclined to work toward consensus and avoid confrontation. Others are very hierarchical and autocratic, and unlike P&G’s culture, don’t demand initiative, commitment, and leadership from middle and lower levels. How does P&G transplant such a strong corporate culture into a foreign country that has its own culture—especially when non-Americans from the local country make up the bulk of its staff ? First it starts out with seasoned management imported into the country, people who started their careers at P&G in the US or elsewhere in the world and are steeped in the company’s culture. These are internationalists, people who move from country to country. Then they recruit and hire nationals out of the country’s colleges and universities who seem to have an affinity for the P&G culture. During the interview process, recruiters talk extensively about the Procter Way, and the applicants who are not comfortable with it are not hired. Those who are hired get extensive indoctrination and training (143–144). The Procter Way is capitalized as if it were a faith, and indeed it represents a deep cultural worldview that is imposed on employees from all cultural and faith backgrounds. The definition of an “internationalist,” in P&G’s view, is not a person who has a deep understanding and respect for

engineering and social justice  77

other cultures, but someone who moves from country to country proselytizing the Procter Way. The overt reference to “indoctrination” belies the shamelessness with which culturally colonialist projects are still being carried out by multinational corporations.

3.5.5 Global Development Engineering The model that has been offered in contrast to multinational activity in globalization is a largely non-governmental organization (NGO)-based approach that draws on appropriate technology ideas from the 1970s toward the goals of sustainable development, the end of poverty, and meeting basic human needs. Organizations have been springing up across the developed world including Engineers without Borders, Engineers for a Sustainable World, Engineering World Health, International Development Enterprises, and other smaller organizations. Kick Start, formerly Approtec (www. kickstart.org), claims in its tagline that it has “the tools to end poverty.” Engineering undergraduates and recent graduates have a tremendous amount of enthusiasm for these organizations and the projects they offer. Along similar lines, engineering students can and do often seek experiences with the Peace Corps or with United States Agency for International Development (USAID). But is it an oversell for these organizations to claim to be ending poverty or to claim that engineering skills can end poverty? Does that fundamentally misunderstand the nature of poverty and our economic systems? Does it dangerously mislead communities? In previous work [84], I have posed these and other questions from the standpoint of a practitioner involved in international projects, recognizing my own complicity in this work that is as problematic as it is urgent. The first set of questions I raise about this work is whether the groups involved fully comprehend or acknowledge the political, cultural, and economic contexts of neoliberalism that create the needs they seek to resolve through engineering. Reading some of many available analyses of globalization [85–87] reveals a clear arc that begins with Thatcher's and Reagan's economic policies and ends with countries in increasing debt unable (partly due to loan restrictions and structural adjustment programs) to provide basic human needs in their countries. What these small American engineering nonprofits are doing is stepping into the gaping void created by these policies, without consideration for how it might make the situation worse by enabling neoliberal policies, or by creating additional engineering disasters like those described by Bruce Rich [75] (albeit on a smaller scale). Often, there is a naive assumption on the part of American engineering nonprofits—or perhaps it is an overall worldview—that free-market solutions exist to end poverty. This unwittingly supports the neoliberal structures that have created so much poverty and environmental destruction around the world. Perhaps our time is better spent working with nonengineering development groups in order to change the underlying economic policies? Consider, for example, the widely touted MoneyMaker pump, developed by Approtec, now KickStart. The initial philosophy of the company was to locally manufacture pumps in several

78  engineering and social justice

African countries, creating profits and local jobs for manufacturers and creating demand up the materials chain. The pumps could be sold by middlemen who could profit (again creating jobs) to farmers who could also profit from the increased efficiencies the pump offered. The logic was to create a middle class to help the richer of the poor out of poverty. However, the logic of capitalism under neoliberal global trade is this: the pumps are now produced in China where more can be made faster and cheaper [88]. The 1970s appropriate technology logic made a certain amount of sense in the economic context of its time, when government policies and funding protected projects from international competition. Now projects have to survive in a global market place, often to the detriment of the goals of appropriate technology. Are we anticipating these problems, and what insurance do we offer communities who take large risks and invest time and money in projects that may fail to stimulate the local economy? Or consider hypothetically a number of small-scale electrification projects in one country. Small university groups work with individual communities to meet their needs, with some opting for wind power (maybe because a professor advisor is a wind energy expert, maybe because a funding source favors wind), others for solar, maybe others for geothermal. Everything is site-specific, and only certain communities (those fortunate enough to have connections to a foreign university or nonprofit) get electrified. How are communities that receive electrification chosen, or families within a given community? Do engineers ask why the government is not funding comprehensive electrification for all? Do engineers plan so that the country could later move to comprehensive electrification for all? Will the technologies implemented be compatible with a national grid, if that is ultimately desirable to increase efficiency, reliability, and affordability? What becomes of the sitespecific solutions in the long term? Second, despite the best of intentions, the overall dynamic of the model employed here is that U.S. engineering students (or engineers) have some saving knowledge to provide to communities. The belief that they “know better” in some ways—maybe just technological ways but often also in cultural ways as well (and these are not as separable as we would like to believe, when it comes down to it)—is awkward at best and often detrimental to communities. Some members of groups have missionary backgrounds and draw on those traditions, which often inculcate religious traditions while providing services. Little use is made, in many cases, of local engineers or local technical expertise. Even when the group leaders take a different attitude, students more often than not make implicit assumptions that are not deconstructed as part of their engineering education, that their education has provided them with privileged knowledge they will now bestow upon needy others. In short, the model reproduces a colonialist dynamic. Third, again despite outward commitments to the contrary, the groups rarely integrate social scientists and language/cultural experts from the United States or in-country who would provide indispensable assistance in interpretation, facilitation of meetings, and attention to power dynam-

engineering and social justice  79

ics. As a result, communication is often poor. The models often place students in country for such small amounts of time (usually weeks, months at most) that good communication is likely not established and trust is not built. Too often, I meet engineers who assume that professional skills are not skills, but something that comes naturally, that anyone can do. Even when engineers know themselves well enough to acknowledge that some people are trained to do it better, the choice to create separate aid groups specific to engineers sends a message of exclusion—something an adept communicator picks up immediately. It takes extra effort to recruit an anthropologist to a group called Engineers for Global Development, for example, than if the group were interdisciplinary in name and intent from the beginning. Fourth, the models can create competing needs between what is good for a U.S. student’s engineering education or a U.S. engineer’s career, on the one hand, and what is good for the community on the other [89]. If students are raising thousands of dollars for travel costs and materials to send a group to engage in a construction project, why send engineering students to do that work instead of providing money to a local organization that can oversee the project utilizing local labor and stimulating other sectors of the local economy? Is the consideration of “learning value” for the engineering students prioritized, regardless of missed opportunity for local community growth and regardless of the dependencies it might create? Is it problematic that we are “viewing the developing world as the classroom of the twenty-first century” [90]? Fifth, again despite stated intentions, there is little recognition of past failures, or current ones, and even less analysis of past failures in order to prevent future ones. Assessment is unconscionably rare. One leader in this field admitted to me that her projects do not involve assessment “because most projects fail.” Not trying to learn from these failures is completely unacceptable. Anthropologist Margareth Hammer [91] provides a clear discussion of how to avoid such pitfalls including: 1) Projects should be formulated in and by the communities that will ultimately benefit. 2) On-site feasibility studies must be undertaken before a project begins to ensure that it has a chance of success. 3) Autonomy and economic independence and the ability to maintain or repair technology are key factors in the long-term sustainability of any project. 4) Projects require thorough market analyses that include an assessment of actual production costs and the available time of the people that do the required work. 5) The appropriateness of a technology should be assessed for the specific community in which it may be implemented. This requires being in the field with the recipient community for some time. 6) Flexibility is required so that the project can evolve over time.

80  engineering and social justice

7) Responsibility does not end when the funding ends. The limitations on people’s availability must be made known upfront before a project begins. 8) Communication and networking are essential. 9) Insurance should be provided so that if a project fails the community does not end up bearing debt. 10) Know all partners in a project and what they are interested in gaining from the project. Groups that are established and cohesive are more likely to stay together. This is all far easier said than done. Engineers have the ability and responsibility to take action to avoid failure. Yet the consequences of engineers’ failure to conduct appropriate assessment are borne largely by the community. An awareness of an individual’s relationship to the context and power dynamics is a prerequisite to ethical action. It is easy to recognize that many of the skills involved in avoiding these common pitfalls are not the traditional purview of engineers. Assessment, communication, flexibility, market analyses, power dynamics, self-awareness, ethics, collaboration, and challenging assumptions are skills not typically emphasized in engineering programs. Yet these are the skills one needs to engage in social justice work. The next chapter examines how to acquire these skills to improve engineers’ work globally and locally.

3.6

RACISM

The word racism itself is not used very often in engineering circles. I suspect this may have something to do with the fact that structural aspects of racism are not understood by many white engineers, thus identifying racism would be perceived as tantamount to accusing an individual of intentional discrimination, inducing immediate defensiveness. Many engineers ponder with concern and puzzlement the problem of minority underrepresentation in engineering. Why don’t the numbers budge, after putting so much money and effort into recruitment and retention efforts? I believe “the problem” has been ill-defined—not in the sense that it lacks a detailed definition, but in the sense that it has been defined incorrectly, with a nearly exclusive focus on underrepresentation—and must be reconceived.

3.6.1 Underrepresentation The underrepresentation of certain minority groups in engineering does indeed raise important social justice concerns, but to define “the problem” solely in these terms is severely limiting. Figure 3.4 provides some recent data revealing continued underrepresentation of Hispanic engineers, Black engineers, and Native American engineers. It is important to note that this figure is difficult to interpret because the U.S. Census Bureau has revised its data gathering on race and ethnicity so that individuals can mark separately the race(s) to which they belong and then note whether they are Hispanic or Latino, while the NSF has apparently not yet made these revisions, treating the Hispanic category

engineering and social justice  81

FIGURE 3.4: Racial diversity of the engineering work force in 2003 against U.S. Population in 2000 [92, 93].

as one of several race options. Thus, the white and Black categories at NSF are non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic Black, while the Census categories include Hispanics/Latinos in both white and Black categories. Still, the underrepresentation of many minority groups is clear and well known within engineering. Over the past several decades, a great deal of research and administrative action has been directed toward understanding why underrepresented minorities are conspicuously absent from engineering and seeking to correct that situation primarily through cocurricular programs. Engineering professor Gary May and National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering (NACME) vice president Daryl Chubin [94] review the literature on success factors for underrepresented students pursuing a degree in engineering. Citing the need for engineers and demographic trends, the authors argue for the increased recruitment and retention of traditionally underrepresented groups in engineering. Success was correlated with the following: •

precollege preparation, highlighting the need for well-resourced K-12 schools for minority students;

82  engineering and social justice

• • • •

recruitment programs including promotion of engineering in high schools and media representation of minority engineers as role models; admissions policies, highlighting the need to fight challenges to affirmative action and to consider alternatives to standardized testing in admissions; financial assistance, especially scholarships and grants, not just loans; and academic intervention programs on the Minority Engineering Program model including orientation courses, clustering minority students in courses, creating a student study center, and structuring study groups.

Bradford Lewis [95], Assistant Professor of Science Education at Morgan State University, critiques common explanations for underrepresentation of African Americans as focusing too strongly on students’ behaviors and attitudes. The goal has been to help the student adjust to engineering, to assimilate to its culture and practices. Some college-level institutional problems are addressed in admissions policies and scholarships, but only a few have suggested changing the field itself, changing curriculum content, or changing classroom pedagogy and climate. Juan Lucena [32] analyzes the shift in rhetoric in the 1980s around underrepresentation in the sciences and engineering. After social justice arguments failed, Lucena suggests, individuals responded by tying the problem of underrepresentation to the perceived threat of economic competitiveness, related then to Japan’s success. Lucena tracks the history of numerous programs geared toward addressing underrepresentation, but he notes that numbers have reached plateaus at around 20% for women undergraduates and 6% for Black and Hispanic undergraduates in engineering. He calls for additional reforms in pedagogy, curriculum, and programs that look beyond the “pipeline” model which seeks to adapt minority male and all female students to the engineering norm and begin instead with a critique of cultural biases within engineering itself. A large number of organizations exist to support people of color in pursuing engineering careers, from K-12 education on through the end of a professional career. Professional societies, such as the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES), the National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE), and the Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers (SHPE), as well as NACME sponsor programs to spark early interest in engineering, support engineering undergraduates through mentoring, scholarships, peer activities, and other programs as well as support professionals by offering networking and professional development, among other programs.

3.6.2 Curricular and Pedagogical Reform Critiques of curricular materials support the call for curricular and pedagogical reform in science and engineering around cultural sensitivity. For example, one review of 17 college and

engineering and social justice  83

high school physics texts examined the representation of African and African American contributions to science [96]. 10 images of Blacks were represented in the 17 books, but none were scientists; eight were athletes or musicians, while the other two were unidentified. As the study notes, such treatments serve to reinforce racial stereotypes about the intellectual abilities of Blacks in the sciences and engineering. Perhaps more significant than the presence of negative stereotypes is the utter absence of role models. The books reviewed completely omitted contributions from Africa and largely included only contributions (and images) of U.S. and European scientists. In engineering, Frehill’s examination of first-year textbooks [97] identified a similar lack of representation of women and minorities, as well as depictions that reinforced stereotypes. In fact, one need not look far to find outright racial hostility in engineering classrooms. To pick a particularly overt example, consider the electrical engineering mnemonic for the order of resistor color codes (black brown red orange yellow green blue violet gray white). The mnemonic has many variations, as it has been passed down in an oral lecture tradition not written in textbooks, but one version (common enough to have about 50 hits in a Google search on the exact phrase) is “Black Boys Rape Our Young Girls But Violet Gives Willingly.” In many instances “black” has been changed to “bad” in a weak attempt to omit the overt racism. But it only begs the question, who is the “we” speaking of “our young girls?” It is difficult to erase the reference to the white American cultural tradition of raising fears of Black men raping white women [98,99]; the subtext is still there in references to “bad boys” and “our” women. There has been an ongoing curricular reform movement in science education, largely at the K-12 level, to decenter Western civilization and increase the visibility of scientific contributions from individual scientists of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. Numerous resources exist for the K-12 classroom, including lesson plans for math and science subjects, and books that profile prominent scientists or inventors from diverse backgrounds (see http://www.eed.state.ak.us/TLS/ FRAMEWORKS/mathsci/msapdg.htm for a representative bibliography). In parallel with the movement to create a multicultural classroom, Native Studies scholars, such as Gregory Cajete [100], have opened up the possibilities for redefining science on Native terms, incorporating Native values and worldviews in the practice of science. Science and technology studies scholar David Hess [101] provides a critique of Western science and presents some of the alternative movements with an emphasis on ethnoscience. Much of this multicultural content has yet to see an undergraduate engineering classroom. To be sure, more work is needed that focuses specifically on engineering, but there is already a wealth of information available that could be incorporated. In previous work I provide a discussion of a few avenues for incorporating non-Western notions of thermodynamics and increasing the visibility of women of color in engineering thermodynamics [102].

84  engineering and social justice

3.6.3 Stereotypes There are clear mythologies in our society about who can and who cannot do engineering. Asians have been seen as an overrepresented group in engineering, and as a group with innate abilities that imply they do not need assistance afforded to other minorities such as mentoring. Consequently, real problems of discrimination in employment and education faced by Asian Americans are ignored [103,104]. Whites use this myth of the “model minority” against other minority groups, arguing that if Asian Americans are able to achieve middle-class status, then other minority groups must not need support systems, because if they could just be more (pick a stereotype here—hardworking, obedient, etc.) then they too would be successful [104]. Sociologist Paul Wong and colleagues [104] interviewed over 700 university students, nearly equally divided among white, Black, Hispanic, Native American, and Asian American, finding all racial groups perceived Asian Americans as having significantly higher academic performance, motivation to succeed academically, and probability of success after college. Asian Americans were seen as a “model minority” by all racial groups in the study including Asian Americans themselves. However, measures of actual performance [grade point average (GPA), scholastic aptitude test (SAT) scores, academic preparation] demonstrated no difference between Asian Americans and other minority groups (except African Americans, whose SAT verbal scores and GPAs were significantly lower). Asian Americans were found to be more likely to pursue an engineering major, but not significantly more likely than whites, Native Americans, and Hispanics. Wong et al. further note the importance of considering citizenship in analysis of Asian populations in the United States and differentiating between Asian and Pacific Islander populations. Taking these different populations into consideration reveals a more complex story and additional challenges faced by Pacific Islanders and Asian American citizens that can be glossed over when they are lumped into larger categories of analysis. Consideration of the intersectionality of race and gender in engineering reveals an even more complex story. Education scholar Pauline Chinn [105] provides an insightful narrative analysis of female Asian and Pacific Islander engineers and scientists, exploring racial stereotypes among “model minorities” and incorporating the intersection of race and gender in her analysis. Confucian ideas about gender affected family life and the participants' approaches to addressing the competition between gender and professional identity in engineering. Education and Counseling scholar James L. Moore [106] presents evidence that cultural stereotypes about Black men have a profound influence on their experience of engineering as undergraduates. The response among Black men who persist in engineering is characterized as a “prove them wrong syndrome” in which Black men work harder to counter the negative stereotypes held by peers and professors. Moore contextualizes these findings in earlier literature on experiences of African American males in higher education (e.g., [107]), in stereotypes of what it means to be Black

engineering and social justice  85

and male including Black intellectual inferiority [108,109], and in the phenomena of stereotype threat and low expectations [110–112]. Stereotypes can reinforce underrepresentation by making successful minority engineers invisible. Journalism professor Marilee Long and colleagues [113] analyzed the content of four children's television shows aimed at promoting science education, noting that minorities were much less likely to appear and to appear as scientists. Institutions can contribute to the invisibility (or visibility) of minority engineers; for example, the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education [114] decried the fact that at that time, only eight Blacks were members of the National Academy of Engineering (comprising about 1.5% of members).

3.6.4 Racist Cultures in Engineering There is a literature that seeks to describe the experience of minority engineers and relate it to the dominant culture within engineering education. Amy Slaton [115] relates the history of African Americans in engineering education since World War II, examining both the student and institutional experience. Cynthia Foor and colleagues [20] examine the intersectionality of race, class, and gender in an ethnographic study of one female, multi-minority student from an economically disadvantaged background. The authors compare the student’s answers to that of other students to point out differences in social, cultural, and symbolic capital. Advantages, such as attending Montessori school, attending science summer camps and SAT prep courses, having a parent with connections for internship acquisition, and possessing certain types of knowledge like how to dress appropriately for an interview, are pointed out as privileges of class. Foor and colleagues [20] point out that this all adds up to students from less privileged backgrounds not knowing how to “play the game.” As an example, the subject of the paper relates missing co-op opportunities because she never approached the co-op office, assuming that she was not eligible to do a co-op based on an average GPA. While class clearly limits her opportunity, the student is also very aware of her status as biracial. She related in the interview the experience of having to explain her identity and that her heritage is more than what people assume based on her looks. The student indicted faculty who appeared to play favorites in class and an advisor who she felt never wanted her to be an engineer, highlighting the important contributions faculty can make to the level of welcome students experience. Gary Downey and Juan Lucena [116] trace the experiences of two Black men and one Hispanic woman, examining the competition between senses of self. On the one hand, they argue that engineering demands a self purely invested in mathematical problem solving, devoid of emotion, devoid of hobbies such as ballet, and devoid of particular identities such as female, Latino/a, Black, or working class. The profiles of the students show how some students may use the desire to explode stereotypes (of Blacks or females as less capable engineers) as motivation for pursuing and persisting

86  engineering and social justice

in engineering. They also show how some stereotypes may directly encourage pursuit of engineering, for example, pursuing upward class mobility through focus and a strong work ethic. Stereotypes may prove to be real obstacles, in the case of demanding a singular focus to the exclusion of other interests and parts of oneself such as hobbies or emotions. In particular, these denials of certain aspects of self can be read by those who harbor minority identities in engineering (based on race, sex, class, and I might also suggest sexual orientation and gender identity) as a demand to deny those identities, presenting a very real obstacle to underrepresented students pursuing an engineering degree.

3.6.5 Beyond Underrepresentation Ultimately, underrepresentation is certainly not the only and probably also not the most important issue around racism in engineering. Feminist philosopher of science Sandra Harding [117] points out that engineering, in particular, has tended to pursue technologies that may not interest minority groups or that may benefit whites or other privileged groups at the expense of minority groups. For example, she cites the U.S. Space program, “intended to demonstrate the legitimacy and desirability of global dominance by white supremacist Western societies” (17–18). The engineering community would likely react to this statement with shock or dismissal due to a lack of familiarity with such arguments. But the space program does represent this will to power, both on a symbolic level by venturing into space and on a practical level, as the technological development of spacecraft has clear military applications including but not limited to propulsion. The linkages from engineering to racism and colonialism must surely limit the attractiveness of the field for anyone who does not support those ends. The work of women's studies professor Banu Subramaniam [118] on the rhetoric around invasive species provides another example. She details how American fear of the other manifests itself in our characterizations of and concern about foreign species. There are stark examples of racist science and engineering—from Nazi biologists who provided scientific “truth” to back eugenics arguments and ultimately genocide [119] to American scientists in the Public Health Service who participated in the Tuskegee Syphilis study, declining to treat men infected with syphilis long after it was clear that this practice was unethical. The structural nature of racism is revealed, in particular, in the Tuskeegee case, where African American medical professionals and institutions participated in the study, and were in fact the closest to the study’s participants, and were responsible for carrying out many of the harmful actions and inactions that were part of the study [120]. Poet Anthony Walton [121: 16] argues that African Americans’ experience of technology has historically been “irremediably devastating to their hopes, dreams and possibilities.” He chronicles the importance of the caravel (innovation in ship design) and the cotton gin to the rise and growth of the slave trade. Later, the mechanical cotton picker would displace southern Blacks to find work

engineering and social justice  87

in northern factories, where white immigrants grew resentful of the impact on their job opportunities. Reconstruction and Jim Crow laws prevented African Americans from being able to participate meaningfully in technological transformations that have had such a negative effect on African Americans. All of this, he argues, has contributed to Black “folkways” in America—his word for “those unspoken, largely unconscious patterns of thought and belief about what is possible that guide aspiration and behavior” (17)—folkways that do not support pursuit of technology. Black folkways, he argues, do not see engineering as an upwardly mobile profession, do not encourage pursuit of physics and calculus in high school, and do not support technological pursuits as a means to make money. Walton argues that this is critical: “Mastery of technology is second only to money as the true measure of accomplishment in this country, and it is very likely that by tolerating this underrepresentation in the technological realm, and by not questioning and examining the folkways that have encouraged it, blacks are allowing themselves to be kept out of the mainstream once again. This time, however, they will be excluded from the greatest cash engine of the twenty-first century” (18). While Walton's analysis is different from the mainstream thinking about the causes of minority underrepresentation in engineering, his solution is the same—to encourage more Black students (his focus is on African Americans, in particular) to pursue technology. However, Walton's analysis also gets beyond underrepresentation, examining deeper issues of social inequality and the complex relationship between technology and society. For whom is engineering done? Who benefits and who loses from engineering practice? What problems are considered to be within the engineer's purview? The ways in which the answers to these questions reflect our histories and current realities of racism must be examined further. Langdon Winner [122] discussed how Robert Moses's overpasses on Long Island were built so low that buses could not pass under them. As a result, the socioeconomic development of Long Island was significantly affected, developing the area into white affluent suburbs. Winner argues that this was a reflection of Moses's values, but there is some controversy now about his actual intentions and values. However, it is important to recognize that with or without intentionality, the result is the same: certain values are embedded in that technology, and certain populations kept out of communities as a result. It is interesting to note that Bobby Seale, founder of the Black Panther movement, was an engineering student at Merrit College in Oakland and worked on the Gemini space program [9]. (He left engineering for the social sciences as he became radicalized.) University of Wisconsin engineering

88  engineering and social justice

students Gottlieb John Marmett and Jennifer Schultz [123] argue that Seale brought the best of his engineering abilities to bear on his work which they characterize as solving the problem of racism, citing his eye for detail in planning actions (they do not, however, try to link engineering's military culture with the guerilla culture of the Panthers). Given the problem of underrepresentation, perhaps we should make Seale more visible as an engineer—though perhaps without going through contortions to fit his work into the engineering mold of “problem solving.” On the other hand, if Seale had pursued a career as an engineer and worked for NASA instead of the Panthers, would he have been co-opted rather than radicalized? Should we hold him up as an example of a radical engineer, or be grateful that he left? Harding [117] calls us to consider “under what conditions could it occur that a society with widespread and powerful forms of structural racism—a race-segregated social structure—could produce sciences that did not participate in justifying and maintaining such white supremacy?” (18). This is indeed an important question for the field of engineering as well.

3.7

SEXISM

On December 6, 1989, at the University of Montreal, a man walked into a mechanical engineering classroom, sent the men out of the room, yelled at the women, “You're women, you're going to be engineers, you're all a bunch of fucking feminists. I hate feminists!” and opened fire, ultimately killing 14 women, 13 engineering students, and one staff person, before shooting himself [124: 228]. In case there was any doubt as to his intentions, he left a note behind that made clear that feminists had ruined his life, and that this was the motivation for his killings. Afterward, some speculated that his own denial of admission to the University of Montreal may have been a reason for targeting the female engineers at that particular school [125]. Despite the blatant and explicit misogyny in the actions and words of the killer, there were denials of sexism in both media [126] and my own experience, in which many of my peers (male and female) baldly denied that this had anything to do with gender, saying the killer was just crazy. Worse still, most of my professors seemed completely unaware this event even took place. Denial of sexism is extremely powerful in engineering. Many women will respond to discussions of sexism in engineering with “Well, I've never had a problem”—as if this N of 1 proves definitively that there is no problem with sexism in engineering. Denial has its rewards, not only in the sense that male power has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and denial of sexism (especially by women) is a powerful means to that end, but also in the sense that it enables women who feel isolated to just keep their heads down and get their degrees, their promotions, their next step up the ladder. It’s a strategy that works. A corollary to this denial of sexism is a repudiation of feminism, also common in engineering. I have heard many female engineers express a desire for equal pay for equal work or similar principles identified with liberal feminism and then complete their thought with “but I’m not a feminist.” In fact, one of the female engineering students at the

engineering and social justice  89

University of Montreal in 1989 pleaded with the shooter not to open fire, saying, “We’re not feminists. We’re only women who want an education” [127: 56].

3.7.1 Underrepresentation Most work on sexism in engineering has focused on the problem of underrepresentation. Women currently make up only 11% of the U.S. engineering workforce [128]. The National Research Council [129] recently reviewed the literature on the problem of underrepresentation in the academy, finding that: • •

•

•

There are no significant biological differences between men and women that impact women’s abilities in engineering. While there is a “leaky pipeline”—women leave engineering at all points from middle school forward—this leakage does not fully explain the low numbers of women in the field. For example, for 30 years, there have been over 20% women receiving Ph.D. degrees in the life sciences, but they only make up 14.8% of full professors. Women face intentional and unintentional discrimination, self-doubt, and a lack of mentoring and opportunity. Implicit gender and racial biases are well-established in the literature, and document the tendency for people to discriminate, even when they believe they are being completely objective. Job structures that assume the help of an at-home spouse can disadvantage women.

In order to address underrepresentation in the workforce, a widespread effort has taken place over the last few decades, with focuses on K-12 education (including math preparation beginning in middle school and exposure to engineering as a career in high school), undergraduate recruitment and retention, and mentoring and networking in the workforce. Despite these many and varied efforts, numbers have remained relatively stagnant. There are several possible reasons for this: •

• •

Efforts at reform have focused primarily on changing women to fit the mold of engineering, not really changing engineering itself. Even efforts that seek to change the marketing of engineering (e.g., to highlight it as a profession in service to humanity) would not be successful as long as engineering retains its strong ties to militarism or sheer profit making. The culture and curriculum of engineering are deeply sexist and must change to make room for women. The social construction of engineering as a profession is gendered in such a strong way that programs focused on individuals, even when aimed at all ages “k-gray,” cannot undo socialized gender role expectations.

90  engineering and social justice

Numerous groups exist to attract and support women to and in engineering. The Women in Engineering Program and Advocates Network (WEPAN) shares information across university campuses toward the end of improving those programs that support women. The Society for Women Engineers (SWE) has undergraduate chapters and seeks to support women engineers in the workforce by providing networking and professional development opportunities. Mentornet takes a laser focus on mentoring, making use of information technologies to link women across distance. Sally Ride’s Imaginary Lines offers science festivals aimed at involving middle school girls in science and engineering design projects, among other activities.

3.7.2 Sexist Cultures in Engineering Sociologist and ethnographer Elaine Seymour [130] points to numerous cultural factors that cause engineering students to leave the major, some of which point out glaring sexism. While the impetus for her study was the underrepresentation of women in engineering, her findings point to much more than that single problem emerging as a result of sexism in engineering. Seymour is one of many to document the presence of a “weed out” culture—heaping on loads of work that challenge students mentally, emotionally, and physically—which often encourages students to leave, with women leaving in proportionally higher numbers. The classic introductory lecture intimidation exercise that goes something like “look to your left, look to your right, only one of you will still be in engineering at the end of the term” is legendary. Hacker [3] describes this element as disciplining students to suppress bodily desires in order to accomplish the work, denying themselves time for sleep, food, and often recreation or pleasure. Women undergraduates in Seymour’s study often spoke about the attitudes and behavior of their male peers, including sexist jokes and comments, treating female peers as incompetent, dominating laboratory experiences, and being overly concerned with the sexual appeal of women. They described a sense that their male peers viewed their success in engineering as a threat, escalating their negative behavior. For their part, some men in Seymour’s study seemed obsessed with female attractiveness, describing female engineers as unattractive, and nonengineers as attractive; one participant related a story of one female who switched out of engineering and went from being unattractive to attractive. The women Seymour [130] interviewed were all too aware of their male peers’ concern with looks and cited it as a barrier to establishing good working relationships. In light of the negative attention from male peers, Seymour [130] found that many women chose to become invisible (or less visible) as women by dressing in less stereotypically feminine ways (less makeup, pants instead of skirts, etc.). This strategy of blending in with the guys is echoed by Hacker [3], who describes her own experiences as an engineering student at MIT, in which being invisible provided a welcome relief from unwanted male attention.

engineering and social justice  91

Ethnographer Karen Tonso [131] analyzes the discourse in an engineering design class and the ways in which the cultural expectations of engineering are communicated to women. Her findings echo Seymour's, documenting male students' and/or professors' use of profanity, sexual innuendo, and violent language in class. She echoes Seymour's finding about the seeming compatibility between male professional ability and sexual attractiveness, on the one hand, and the perceived incompatibility between female attractiveness and engineering ability on the other. Tonso [132] elaborates on these findings in a more comprehensive and updated study. The mnemonic device discussed in the last section (Black Boys Rape Our Young Girls But Violet Gives Willingly) evidences a deep misogyny in engineering, where women (rendered invisible in so many other ways) are made visible as objects of sexual violence. Examining engineering textbooks reveals other forms of sexism. For example, consider the following quotes from a chemical engineering textbook on transport phenomena: The student may wish to satisfy himself at this point as to the reasons behind the unexpected result [133: 222] Flux plotting is approximate, the accuracy depending upon the patience of the sketcher and his ability to satisfy the above requirements [133: 247]. Whether the authors assume that all engineering students are male, or that the use of “he” as universal is appropriate in a field so dominated by men, the result is the same: the text reinforces the presence of men in engineering and erases the presence of women. Other everyday examples from textbooks reinforce notions of gender outside of engineering. Consider one problem from a Thermodynamics textbook that sought to bring energy balances home to students by examining human metabolism of food: Problem 4-112. A 176-pound man and a 132-pound woman went to Burger King for lunch. The man had a BK Big Fish sandwich (720 Calories), medium french fries (400 Cal) and a large Coke (225 Cal). The woman had a basic hamburger (330 Cal), medium french fries (400 Cal), and a diet Coke (0 Cal). After lunch they start shoveling snow and burn calories at a rate of 360 Cal/h for the woman and 480 Cal/h for the man. Determine how long each one of them needs to shovel snow to burn off the lunch calories. [67: 211] Before examining the sexism, it is worth commenting on the consumerism in this passage and the product placement; does the publisher or author have an agreement to promote certain products to engineering students or to college students? What influence does the heavy emphasis on fast food (present in other problems as well) have on student nutritional choices?

92  engineering and social justice

But here I am focusing on the gender differences reinforced in the problem. Is Diet Coke a product for women, who ought to be on diets? Are women assumed to always be smaller in size than the men who accompany them, so that they consume less food and burn fewer calories when they exercise? More broadly, it is problematic that the authors in presenting a section on food, diet, and exercise from a thermodynamic perspective do not address directly issues related to body image. In fact, one problem has an individual losing 11 pounds in 13 days, another binging on a liter (2 pints!) of ice cream then seeking to exercise away those Calories, and another using a treadmill to burn off Calories after drinking. None are exactly a good example to set for student behavior. The same book awkwardly seeks to offer an analogy about the notion of an “ideal process” in thermodynamics (a theoretical process that does not exist but represents the best achievable in theory): In daily life, the concepts of Mr. Right and Ms. Right are also idealizations, just like the concept of a reversible (perfect) process. People who insist on finding Mr. or Ms. Right to settle down are bound to remain Mr. or Ms. Single for the rest of their lives. [67: 300] Unlike the passages from the transport phenomena text, this passage seems to recognize a coeducational audience. However, the authors are most likely assuming they are heterosexual. (At the very least, there is an assumption that they are interested in being married as opposed to single, and at all costs, they are interested in avoiding being single for the rest of their lives.) There is also a message not to expect too much from a partner, because you might be disappointed. What might this reveal about the emotional lives of engineers? Does this amount to advice to settle in order to settle down, in stark contrast to Louise's exhortation to Thelma, “You get what you settle for” [134]. Sociologist Lisa Frehill's content analysis of the representation of women in first-year engineering textbooks [97] reveals results consistent with these observations. In her study, the representation of women in textbooks in the 1950s and 1960s revealed exclusive use of the masculine pronoun and depiction of women in stereotypically feminine occupations. Beginning in the 1980s and into the 1990s, there was an increasing depiction of women as engineers and use of inclusive pronouns, but exclusively male pronouns persisted in some texts, as did women depicted in stereotypically feminine and in sexualized roles.

3.7.3 Workplace Cultures In case this will all be chalked up to the behavior of immature undergraduate men, it is important to examine the patterns of women’s workplace experiences as well. Again, we are reminded that

engineering and social justice  93

there are examples of workplaces that are supportive of and respectful toward women engineers, but that does not diminish the seriousness or pervasiveness of sexism in engineering workplaces. The patterns presented in the multitude of anecdotes in the literature (of which only a few are presented here), and the high prevalence of reported incidences of sexual harassment described below, suggest that we have more than “a few bad apples”—in fact, we have a sexist engineering culture. Borsook [6] relates the reactions of men in Silicon Valley to Esther Dyson, whom she profiled in an early issue of Wired. When she interviewed others, they asked whom Esther was dating, or made comments about what she wore and how she presented herself—all remarks Borsook had never observed when writing profiles of men in the industry. When Borsook brought this to the attention of her editor he commented that he did not think of Esther as a man or a woman (evidence of the invisibility strategy succeeding). L. Jean Camp [135: 119], then a graduate student in information technology policy, relates the story of a member of the systers mailing list asking for help dealing with sexist “real engineers” jokes at work (as in, “You know you’re an engineer when you have a beard because you have calculated your efficiency loss in time shaving and found it unacceptable.”) The response of systers, by the way, was a series of “real engineers” jokes presuming femaleness—real engineers taking apart fetal distress monitors in delivery rooms, etc. Social scientists Edward Lafontaine and Leslie Tredeau [136] studied the frequency of sexual harassment reported by 160 women in traditionally male occupations including engineering. Over 75% of respondents reported experiencing sexual harassment (compared with about 50% generally reported in the literature at that time for women across all occupations). Women working in engineering positions and in management positions reported higher levels of harassment compared with those working in science, computing, or public administration. McIlwee and Robinson [19] also documented sexual harassment in engineering workplaces; women experienced catcalls, being called “honey” and other less than professional terms, being told inappropriate sexual jokes, and unwanted touching from colleagues and supervisors, among other things. It appears that an engineering culture that is hostile to women persists in many workplaces; it may even escalate as compared to the undergraduate experience because of the ways in which perpetrators can leverage workplace power relationships.

3.7.4 What Counts as Engineering? The Gendering of a Field Scholars in Feminist Technology Studies point to a more insidious and structural form of sexism which defines gendered boundaries of engineering. Alice Pawley [137] describes the field of engineering as a block of Swiss cheese, in which the field has excluded pockets of what would rightly be considered engineering, but for its gendered nature. She contextualizes her research on contem­ porary faculty perspectives by drawing on the findings of several feminist historians of engineering.

94  engineering and social justice

Historian Amy Sue Bix [138] details one example of this phenomenon in which household equipment studies emerged not as a subdiscipline of chemical or electrical engineering, but as a subdiscipline of home economics. The curriculum was rigorous, including courses in mathematics and the physical sciences, but because the applications were in the domestic sphere, it was carved out as women's work. Bix notes that the discipline was not threatening to men because of its domestic applications; indeed, many women were trained with the goal of becoming potential consumers or operators of the equipment. However, during World War II, many women were hired for their engineering expertise. Sociologist Lisa Frehill [139] seeks to answer the question of how engineering became gendered in the United States by examining the period of 1893–1920, during which engineers were making the transition to increased industrialization and urbanization, and seeking to establish engineering as a profession, both in the context of a changing sense of what it meant to be a man in American society. Frehill argues, based in part on Historian Ruth Oldenziel’s work [140], that the profession was seeking to define itself as white, male, and middle class and performed acts of exclusion in order to establish these boundaries. Frehill cites evidence from the journal Engineering News in which the emergence of women tracers (drafters) in England was justified on the grounds that tracing was menial and tedious work that men did not want anyway, and then viewed as a threat by the journal’s editors who complained that hiring women cheapened the labor, making British firms more competitive against American firms. Similarly, women wastewater inspectors were not considered a threat because such inspections took place in the home, requiring the inspector to interact with other women. Further, as rugged outdoorsman Theodore Roosevelt came to typify middleclass masculinity, an emphasis on the outdoors emerged in engineering education, used to recruit boys into engineering, and used to exclude women, who were not considered suited for outdoor endeavors. Engineering’s weed-out culture was seen as a test of manhood, with explicit references to military hazing. Hacker [3] similarly describes engineering education as a path toward imparting specific notions of masculinity deeply shaped by military institutions.

3.7.5 Sexist Technologies How does all of this sexism influence the artifacts and processes developed by engineers? One commonly cited example is the use of the average male in crash testing and other automobile safety analyses and designs. It was not until 2000 that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration required testing using a female dummy in addition to the average male dummy [141]. Smaller occupants, including women and children, were being injured more frequently and more severely in accidents, particularly in those in which airbags were deployed. Sexism in computer games has been documented; as with noncomputer games, games designed for boys are viewed as the norm (and girls can, on occasion, cross gender boundaries to play with them), while girls' games are “marked” as feminine, such that boys' playing with them is

engineering and social justice  95

considered seriously transgressive. Attempts to create games for girls often reinscribe gender roles, playing on the most stereotypical ideas of what it means to be a girl [142]. Such stereotyping occurs outside of gaming as well. Consider “Your Concept Car” (YCC) developed by a team of mostly female engineers at Volvo in order to market the car, in particular, to affluent European businesswomen [143]. Features included: • • • • • •

storage ports for umbrella, purse, and phone; gull-winged doors (like the 1980s De Lorean) to allow graceful entry and exit; pedals and floor designed to accommodate high heels; the interior can be redecorated seasonally; the rear seats fold down for groceries; and the car does not allow its driver to get under the hood; maintenance is automated by the car’s computer, which dials the dealership directly.

Automotive journalist Warren Brown asks the all important question, “But is all of this YCC stuff just a different form of pink, or is it a credible attempt to satisfy the needs of women in the automotive marketplace?” This is an important lesson for social justice advocates to keep in mind and continue to communicate with people working on diversity issues in engineering and engineering education. Essentialism is alive and well, and diversity as headcounts still wins the day. We have to drive beyond the superficial when it comes to sexism in engineering, to consider how the field is constructed and bounded based on gender, to consider how gender itself is socially constructed, and to consider how our designs are, in turn, influenced by all of these. We cannot step outside of the culture, but if we can hone our analytical skills, we can work toward designs that resist sexism.

3.8 HOMOPHOBIA AND HETEROSEXISM Homophobia and heterosexism also exist in engineering, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) invisibility is an enormous problem (so much a problem that there are no data I am aware of on representation of LGBT people in engineering). Gender role stereotypes and a general lack of education about LGBT people as well as close ties to military institutions with clear anti-LGBT policies and cultures all contribute to the homophobia in engineering. While some LGBT people are out at work, it is not unusual in the conservative culture of engineering for individuals to be closeted at work. Predd [144] profiles one gay and one lesbian engineer working in the high-tech industry: one is said to have been closeted for the first 8 years of her career, while the other is still in the closet and used a pseudonym in his interview. The National Organization of Gay and Lesbian Scientists and Technical Professionals seeks to raise visibility and counter stereotypes of LGBT scientists and engineers through annual awards.

96  engineering and social justice

Digital Queers operated in the 1990s to promote queer visibility on the web, specifically helping LGBT advocacy groups to develop a web presence. The group merged with the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), a group that focuses on media representations of LGBT people. In other work, I have sought to provide some basic information about the LGBT community to engineering managers, focusing on workplace issues [145].

3.9

ABLEISM, ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGIES, AND UNIVERSAL DESIGN

Examples of ableist artifacts designed by engineers are ubiquitous. A new focus on universal design seeks to change the status quo by emphasizing access for all. Martha Albertson Fineman [146], Woodruff Professor of Law at Emory University, views the universal design movement as a positive example of engineering in the service of social justice, in which individual differences are taken into account rather than designing to an assumed norm that excludes some. In many examples, designing for special cases improves a product for all users; Fineman cites curb cuts as one example, which allow for wheelchair traffic, but also allow for strollers, suitcases, and other rolling traffic. However, even the best of intentions matched with excellent technical skills and creativity do not guarantee universal design that supports social justice. In practice, engineers or engineering students become enthusiastically involved in assistive technology projects that may or may not help clients as intended. For example, Catalano [147] cautions us to think through the consequences of assistive technology design project courses for human relationships, describing a case study of a project at the U.S. Military Academy in which a ticket-taking machine was designed for a disabled worker at a movie theater. The individual was initially pleased both with the device and the increased attention he received from the students with whom he developed close relationships and from the media when the project was completed. Shortly thereafter, however, the withdrawal from the excitement took an enormous toll and the worker became depressed and was ultimately institutionalized.

3.10

Conclusion

By and large, one could say that engineering has reflected the values of mainstream society, neoliberalism, military and corporate interests. This is partly due to, and continually justified by, engineers' commitment to considering themselves value-neutral or objective. But because there is no such thing as value neutrality, engineering has reflected some unjust biases embedded in our social structures to the point where they have become so mainstream as to be rendered invisible. This default set of values has been inculcated in engineers through the engineering education process. In the next chapter, we consider what has been missing from the education engineers have typically received, and what engineers, motivated to work toward social justice in their careers and lives, need to learn in order to be effective agents of change.

engineering and social justice  97

In all these areas of historical and traditional injustice, voices are emerging, asking for whom and by whom is engineering done, how is engineering done, and who wins and who loses from engineering activity? We are at the beginning of an exciting time in engineering, and we have an opportunity to transform the profession for the better.

References 1. King Jr., M.L. (1967) Beyond Vietnam: A time to break silence. Speech delivered by Dr. King April 4, 1967, Riverside Church, New York City. Accessed September 26, 2007 from the Martin Luther King Jr. Papers Project at Stanford University, http://www.stanford.edu/ group/King/publications/speeches/Beyond_Vietnam.pdf. 2. Zussman, R. (1985) Mechanics of the Middle Class: Work and Politics Among American Engineers. Berkeley: University of California Press. 3. Hacker, S. (1989) Pleasure, Power & Technology: Some tales of Gender, Engineering, and the Cooperative Workplace. Boston: Unwin Hyman. 4. Carnegie Foundation (1984) National Survey of Higher Education, Faculty Sample. Accessed February 29, 2008, from http://www.thearda.com/Archive/Files/Descriptions/NSHEF84.asp. 5. Gambeta, D. and Hertog, S. (2007) Engineers of Jihad. Sociology Working Papers 2007-10, Oxford University. Accessed January 25, 2008, from http://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/users/gambetta/ Engineers%20of%20Jihad.pdf. 6. Borsook, P. (2000) Cyberselfish: A critical Romp Through the Terribly Libertarian Culture of High Tech. New York: Public Affairs. 7. Sinclair, U. [1935] (1994) I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. Originally published New York: Farrar and Rinehart. 8. Winner, L. (1986) Do artifacts have politics? The Whale and the Reactor (pp. 19–39). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 9. Wisnioski, M. (2003) Inside “the system”: Engineers, scientists, and the boundaries of social protest in the long 1960s. History and Technology, 19(4): 313–33. doi:10.1080/073415103200 0181077 10. SelfEd Collective (2001) A history of anarcho-syndicalism. Materials for a 24-unit correspondence course. Unit 14: Anarcho-Syndicalism in Britain, 1914–30, 2nd edn. SelfEd Collective. Accessed April 9, 2008, from http://www.selfed.org.uk/units/2001/pdfs/14.pdf. 11. Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger (1986) Questioning of Jerry Mason at the February 25, 1986, hearing. Report to the President by the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident, 5 vols. Washington, D.C.: GPO. Accessed September 17, 2007, from http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v4part7.htm. 12. Nader, R. (1972) Unsafe at Any Speed. New York: Grossman.

98  engineering and social justice

13. Davis, J.A. (1965) Undergraduate Career Decisions. Chicago: Aldine. 14. Werts, C.E. (1967) Career Changes in College. Sociology of Education, 40: 90–5. doi: 10.2307/2112189 15. Simon, P. (2003) A GI bill for today. Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(10: October 31): B16. 16. Florman, S. (1978) Engineering and the Female Mind. Harper’s, 256(1533: February): 57–63. 17. Downey, G.L. (2007) Low Cost, Mass Use: American Engineers and the Metrics of Progress, History and Technology, 23(3):289–308. doi:10.1080/07341510701300387 18. Friedman, S.M. (1977) Research Report: Women in Engineering: Influential Factor for Career Choice. Newsletter on Science, Technology, & Human Values, (20: June), 14–6. doi:10.1177 /016224397700200302 19. McIlwee, J. and Robinson, J.G. (1992) Women in Engineering: Gender, Power and Workplace Culture. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. 20. Foor, C.E., Walden, S.E., and Trytten, D.A. (2007) “I wish that I belonged more in this whole engineering group:” Achieving individual diversity. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(2): 103–16. 21. Mills, C.W. (1951) White Collar. New York: Oxford University Press. 22. Marx, K. (1867) Capital, vol. 1. Accessed September 19, 2007, from the Marx-Engels Internet Archive http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch15.htm. 23. von Baeyer, H.C. (1999) Warmth Disperses and Time Passes: A History of Heat. New York: Modern Library. 24. MacGillis, A. (2007) Collapse is latest fight for coal's best friend. Washington Post, August 9, 2007, p. A01. 25. Gehrke, R. (2008) Crandall Canyon Bombshell: Months before deadly cave-ins, owners knew of structural woes. The Salt Lake Tribune, January 17, 2008. 26. U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Report on the August 6, 2007 Disaster at Crandall Canyon Mine. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, March 6, 2008. Accessed April 16, 2008, from http://kennedy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CCM%20R eport%20Final%20FOR%20POSTING%20020608.pdf. 27. KSL TV and Radio, Salt Lake City, UT. Bob Murray Press Conference on Crandall Canyon Mine Collapse. Accessed September 14, 2007, from http://real.ksl.com/video/slc/1/194/19429.mp3. 28. CNN (2007) Transcript of Bob Murray Press Conference on Crandall Canyon Mine Collapse, August 7, 2007. Accessed September 14, 2007, from http://transcripts.cnn.com/ TRANSCRIPTS/0708/07/ywt.01.html. 29. National Public Radio (2007) Murray says Crandall Canyon Mine to be closed. Morning Edition, August 23, 2007. Interview with Bob Murray conducted by John Ytsdie. Accessed September 14, 2007, from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=13866983.

engineering and social justice  99

30. Catalano, G.D. and Baillie, C. (2006) Engineering, social justice, and peace: A revolution of the heart. ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, Chicago, IL, June 18–21, 2006. 31. Wickenden, W.E. (1930) Report of the Investigation of Engineering Education, 1923–1929, vol. I. Pittsburgh: Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education. 32. Lucena, J.C. (2005) Defending the Nation: U.S. Policymaking to Create Scientists and Engineers from Sputnik to the ‘War against Terrorism’ Lanham, MD: University Press of America. 33. Slade, G. (2006) Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 34. Packard, V. (1957) The Hidden Persuaders. New York: D. McKay. 35. Markoff, J. (2002) Ideas & trends; Is planned obsolescence obsolete? New York Times, February 17, 2002, Section 4, Column 1, Week in Review Desk, p. 6. 36. Decker, C.L. (1998) Winning with the P&G 99. New York: Simon & Schuster Pocket Books. 37. Swasy, A. (1993) Soap Opera: The Inside Story of Procter & Gamble. New York: Random House Times Books. 38. Hill, R. and Solt, G. (2006) Financial Fundamentals for Engineers. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. 39. Hawken, P., Lovins, A., and Lovins, L.H. (1999) Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution. Boston: Little, Brown. 40. McDonough, W. and Braungart, M. (2002) Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. New York: North Point Press. 41. The Next Industrial Revolution: William McDonough, Michael Braungart and the Birth of the Sustainable Economy [videorecording] (2001) Chris Bedford and Shelley Morhaim (directors), Shelley Morhaim (producer). Baltimore: Earthome Productions. 42. Associated Press (2007) Russia reportedly tests record-setting explosive. MSNBC, September 12, 2007. Accessed November 2, 2007, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20730691/. 43. OED (1989) “Engineer, n.” The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edn. OED Online. Oxford University Press. Accessed August 6, 2007, from http://dictionary.oed.com/. 44. Alder, K. (1997) Engineering the Revolution: Arms and Enlightenment in France, 1763–1815. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 45. Horowitz, M. and Carson, J. (2005) Engineers, Terrorism, and the Spread of Democracy. Engineering Times, August–September 2005. Accessed September 26, 2007, from http://www. nspe.org/etweb/10805viewpoint.asp. 46. National Science Foundation and the National Science Board (1993) Science and Engineering Indicators 1993. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. Accessed September 17, 2007, from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind93/chap3/doc/3s293.htm.

100  engineering and social justice

47. Kannankutty, N. (2007) SRS, National Science Foundation. Personal communication, September 19, 2007. 48. National Research Council, Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel (1989) The Impact of Defense Spending on Nondefense Engineering Labor Markets: A Report to the National Academy of Engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 49. Galama, T. and Hosek, J. (2007) Perspectives on U.S. Competitiveness in Science and Technology. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Accessed September 28, 2007, from http://www. rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF235/. 50. United States Department of Defense (2006) DoD Personnel and Procurement Statistics, Fiscal Year 2006. Accessed September 28, 2007, from http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/procurement/ historical_reports/statistics/p01/fy2006/top100.htm. 51. White, R.T. (2003) TSA's national conference boasts best quality competitions, Presenters, attendance in 25-year history. Technology Student Association Press Release, July 31, 2003. Accessed September 26, 2007, from http://www.tsaweb.org/content.asp?contentid=575. 52. Coutts, R.B. (2005) Engineering leadership: The 21st century definition. Symposium on Engineering and Engineering Education in the 21st Century, June 21, 2005. Medford, MA: Tufts University. Accessed September 26, 2007, from http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/ speeches/EngineeringLeadership21stCenturyDef.html. 53. Dun & Bradstreet's Million Dollar Database. (2007) Bethlehem, PA: Dun's Marketing Services. 54. Contract Manufacturing Solutions Specialists Inc. (2004) Defense manufacturing: Have we lost the advantage? September 10, 2004. Accessed October 1, 2007, from http://www.cms-specialists .com/Defense%20Manufacturing.pdf. 55. IBISWorld Industry Report, September 11, 2007. Engineering Services in the United States, NAICS Code 541330. IBISWorld, Inc. 56. Ohio State University, Engineering Career Services (2004) Top employers of engineering majors summer 2003–spring 2004. Accessed October 1, 2007, from http://career.eng.ohio-state .edu/statistics/pdf-files/2003-2004TopEmployer.pdf. 57. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign College of Engineering (2002) Top employers of engineering graduates (data available from August 1996 through May 2001). Accessed October 1, 2007, from http://www.engr.uiuc.edu/communications/directory/099.shtml. 58. Eisenhower, D.D. (1961) Farewell address, delivered 17 January 1961. Champaign, IL: Project Gutenberg. Video available http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY accessed October 10, 2007. 59. Mills, C.W. (1956) The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press. 60. Forbes (2005) Large cities with the highest concentration of engineers. Forbes, best places for business and careers (annual), May 23, 2005, p. 157. In Thomson Gale, Business Rankings An-

engineering and social justice  101

nual 2006. Reproduced in Business and Company Resource Center, Gale Group, Farmington Hills, MI, June 2002. http://galenet.gale.com/servlet/BCRC/ Article: I2501247804. 61. Huntsville, A., Cummings Research Park Directory. Accessed October 1, 2007, from http:// www.huntsvillealabamausa.com/new_exp/crp/news/CRP_Directory.pdf. 62. Melbourne, FL, City information. Accessed October 1, 2007, from http://www.melbourneflorida .org/info/. 63. San Jose, CA, Employer factsheet. Accessed October 1, 2007, from http://www.sanjoseca. gov/planning/factsheet/employment.asp. 64. Geiger, R.L. (1992) Science, universities, and national defense, 1945–1970. Osiris, 2nd Series, 7: 26–48. doi:10.1086/368704 65. NSF (2006) National Science Foundation and the National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators 2006. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. Accessed September 17, 2007, from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/. 66. Crombie, J. (1999) Mumford on how war and mining corrupted our values. Ludus Vitalis, 7(12): 139–51. 67. Çengel, Y.A. and Boles, M.A. (2008) Thermodynamics: An Engineering Appproach, 6th edn. Boston: McGraw Hill. [Note: Although dated 2008, copy was received in 2006.] 68. Feldman, J. (1989) Economic Conversion: an alternative to military dependency in the university. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 577: 231–41. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1989 .tb15069.x 69. Hacker, B.C. (1992) [Untitled book review of three works, including Ethical Issues Associated with Scientific and Technological Research for the Military, C. Mitcham and P. Siekevitz (Eds.)] ISIS: Journal of the History of Science in Society, 83(2): 362–4. doi:10.1086/356186 70. Vesilind, A.,Ed. (2005) Peace Engineering: When Personal Values and Engineering Careers Converge. Woodsville, NH: Lakeshore Press. 71. Catalano, G.D. (2004) A Peace Paradigm for Engineering Education: A Dissenter's View. Proceedings of the 2004 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. 72. Brenes, A. (2002) The Earth Charter principles: Source for an ethics of universal responsibility. In P. Miller and L. Westra (Eds.) Just Ecological Integrity. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. [Referenced in [71].] 73. Adas, M. (1990) Machines as the Measure of Men: Science, Technology, and Ideologies of Western Dominance. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 74. Baillie, C. (2006) Engineers Within a Local and Global Society. San Rafael, CA: Morgan and Claypool. doi:10.2200/S00059ED1V01Y200609ETS002 75. Rich, B. (1994) Mortgaging the Earth: The World Bank, Environmental Impoverishment, and the Crisis of Development. Boston: Beacon Press.

102  engineering and social justice

76. Judge, P.S. (1997) Response to Dams and Displacement in Two Indian States. Asian Survey, 37(9): 840–51. doi:10.1525/as.1997.37.9.01p02797 77. Bowman, A. (2003) The Tehri Dam: To take away the lives of the living. Smith College student paper. 78. Shiva, V. (2003) Killing the Ganga. The Hindu Sunday Magazine, August 31, 2003. Accessed Sep­ tember 21, 2007, from http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/mag/stories/2003083100310500.htm. 79. Wade, N. (1974). Green revolution: I. A just technology, often unjust in use. Science, 186: 1093–6. doi:10.1126/science.186.4169.1093 80. Wade, N. (1974). Green revolution: II. Problems of adapting a western technology. Science, 186: 1186–92. doi:10.1126/science.186.4170.1186 81. Chapin, G. and Wasserstrom, R. (1981) Agricultural production and malaria resurgence in Central America and India. Nature 293(5829): 181–5. doi:10.1038/293181a0 82. Dixon, B. (2007) The profits of philanthropy: Is Bill Gates trying to hijack Africa's food supply? Counterpunch, June 6, 2007. Accessed October 5, 2007, from http://www.counterpunch. org/dixon06062007.html. 83. Shiva, V. (2000) Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply. Cambridge, MA: South End Press. 84. Riley, D.M. (2007) Resisting neoliberalism in global development engineering. ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, Honolulu, HI, June 24–27, 2007. 85. Steger, M.B. (2003) Globalization: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 86. Harvey, D. (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 87. Stiglitz, J. (2002) Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: W.W. Norton. 88. McGregor, S. (2006) Pumping out the profits: Non-profit manufacturer KickStart is tapping into Africa's endless supply of human energy to help poor farmers reap the fruits of their labor. Embassy, March 29, 2006. Accessed January 22, 2008, from http://www.embassymag. ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2006/march/29/africapump/. 89. Riley, D.M. and Bloomgarden, A. (2006) Learning and service in engineering and global development. International Journal of Service Learning in Engineering, 2(1): 48–59. 90. Amadei, B. (2003) Program in engineering for developing communities: Viewing the developing world as the classroom of the 21st century. Proceedings—Frontiers in Education Conference, 2: F3B1–6. 91. Hammer, M. (1994) Why projects fail. Ceres, 26(1): 32–5. 92. NSF (2005) National Science Foundation Committee on equal opportunities in science and engineering. 2006 Biennial Report to Congress. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation. Accessed October 5, 2007, from http://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/activities/ceose/reports/2006_ Biennial_Report_Print.pdf.

engineering and social justice  103

93. U.S. Census Bureau (2001) Overview of race and Hispanic origin. Census 2000 Brief issued March 2001. Accessed October 5, 2007, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/ c2kbr01-1.pdf. 94. May, G.S. and Chubin, D.E. (2003) A retrospective on undergraduate engineering success for underrepresented minority students. Journal of Engineering Education, 92(1): 27–39. 95. Lewis, B.F. (2003) A critique of the literature on the underrepresentation of African Americans in science: Directions for future research. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 9(3–4): 361–73. doi:10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.v9.i34.100 96. Pappademos, J. (1983) An outline of Africa's role in the history of physics. In I. Van Sertima, (Ed.) Blacks in Science: Ancient & Modern (pp. 177–96). New Brunswick: Transaction Books. 97. Frehill, L.M. (1994) Images of women in engineering textbooks. 1994 WEPAN Conference, pp. 179–84. 98. Davis, A.Y. (1985) Violence against women and the ongoing challenge to racism. Latham, NY: Kitchen Table: Women of Color Press. 99. Fonow, M.M., Richardson, L., and Wemmerus, V.S. (1992) Feminist rape education: Does it work? Gender and Society, 6(1): 108–21. doi:10.1177/089124392006001007 100. Cajete, G. (2000) Native Science: Natural Laws of Interdependence. Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light Publishers. 101. Hess, D. J. (1995) Science and Technology in a Multicultural World: Cultural Politics of Facts and Artifacts. New York: Columbia University Press. 102. Riley, D. (2003) Pedagogies of liberation in an engineering thermodynamics class. ASEE Annual Conference, Nashville, Tennessee, June 22–25, 2003. 103. MentorNet (1996) Asian Americans—Challenges for the model minority. MentorNet News, May 2006. Accessed October 10, 2007, from http://www.mentornet.net/documents/about/ news/newsart.aspx?nid=10&sid=1. 104. Wong, P., Lai, C.P., Nagasawa, R., and Lin, T. (1998) Asian Americans as a model minority: Self-perceptions and perceptions by other racial groups. Sociological Perspectives, 41(1): 95–118. 105. Chinn, P. (2002) Asian and Pacific Islander women scientists and engineers: A narrative exploration of model minority, gender, and racial stereotypes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(4): 302–23. 106. Moore III, J.L., Madison-Colmore, O., and Smith, D.M. (2003) The prove-them-wrong syndrome: voices from unheard African-American males in engineering disciplines. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 12(1): 61–73. doi:10.3149/jms.1201.61 107. Davis, J.E. (1994) College in black and white: Campus environment and academic achievement of African American males. Journal of Negro Education, 63: 620–33. doi:10.2307/2967299

104  engineering and social justice

108. Fleming, J. (1984) Blacks in college: A comparative study of students’ success in black and white institutions. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. 109. Major, B., Spencer, S., Schmader, T., Wolfe, C., and Crocker, J. (1998) Coping with negative stereotypes about intellectual performance: the role of psychological disengagement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(1): 34–50. doi:10.1177/0146167298241003 110. Steele, C.M. (1997) A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual ability and performance. American Psychologist, 52: 613–29. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613 111. Steele, C.M. (2003) Stereotype threat and African-American student achievement. In T. Perry, C. Steele, and A.G. Hilliard III (Eds.), Young Gifted and Black: Promoting High Achievement Among African-American Students (pp. 109–30), Boston: Beacon Press. 112. Steele, C.M. and Aronson, J. (1995) Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African-Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69: 797–811. 113. Long, M., Boiarsky, G., and Thayer, G. (2001) Gender and racial counter-stereotypes in science education television: A content analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 10(3): 255–69. 114. The National Academy of Engineering: A walk on the white side. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 23 (Spring 1999), 58–60. 115. Slaton, A. (2004) Minority engineering education in the United States since 1945: A research proposal. In B. Sinclair (Ed.), Technology and the African-American Experience: Needs and Opportunities for Study. Cambridge: MIT Press. [Also see forthcoming book: Excluded from the Future: Historical Perspectives on the Under-Representation of African Americans in Engineering, Harvard University Press.] 116. Downey, G.L. and Lucena, J. C. (1997) Engineering selves: Hiring in to a contested field of education. In Downey and Dumit (Eds.), Cyborgs & Citadels: Anthropological Interventions in Emerging Sciences and Technologies, Santa Fe: School for Advanced Research Press. 117. Harding, S. (2006) Science and Social Inequality: Feminist and Postcolonial Issues. Champaign, IL: The University of Illinois Press. 118. Subramaniam, B. (2005) The aliens have landed! Reflections on the rhetoric of biological invasions. In B. Hartmann, B. Subramaniam, and C. Zerner (Eds.), Making Threats: Biofears and environmental anxieties (pp. 135–47). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. 119. Proctor, R. (2006) Racial Hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 120. Jones, J.H. (1993) Bad Blood: The Tuskeegee Syphilis Experiment. New York: Free Press. 121. Walton, A. (1999) Technology vs. African-Americans. Atlantic Monthly, January 1999, pp. 14–8. 122. Winner, L. (1986) Do artifacts have politics? The Whale and the Reactor (pp. 19–39). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

engineering and social justice  105

123. Marmett, G.J. and Schultz, J. (1998) Engineering Bobby. Wisconsin Engineer, 102(2: February). Accessed November 7, 2007, from http://www.engr.wisc.edu/wiscengr/issues/feb98/editorial .html. 124. Fox, J.A. and Levin, J. (2005) Extreme Killing: Understanding Serial and Mass Murder. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 125. Weston, G. and Aubry, J. (1990) Montreal's mass killer Marc Lépine's hatred fed on failure. The Toronto Star, February 8, 1990, p. A18. 126. Malette, L. and Chalouh, M. (1991) Montreal Massacre. Translated by M. Wildeman. Charlottetown, PEI, Canada: Gynergy Books. 127. Malette, L. (1991) Letter to the media that appeared in Voir, December 14, 1989, and in La Presse, December 20, 1989. Reprinted in Montreal Massacre. L. Malette and M. Chalouh (Eds.). Translated by M. Wildeman. Charlottetown, PEI, Canada: Gynergy Books, pp. 56–7. 128. NSF (2007) Employed scientists and engineers, by occupation, highest degree level, and sex: 2003. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Science and Engineering Statistics. Accessed October 31, 2007, from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/ pdf/tabh-5.pdf. 129. National Research Council, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. (2007) Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 130. Seymour, E. (1995) The loss of women from science, mathematics, and engineering undergraduate majors: An explanatory account. Science Education, 79(4): 437–73. doi:10.1002/ sce.3730790406 131. Tonso, K.L. (1996) The impact of cultural norms on women. Journal of Engineering Education, 85: 217–25. 132. Tonso, K.L. (2007) On the Outskirts of Engineering: Learning Identity, Gender, and Power via Engineering Practice. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. 133. Welty, J.R. Wicks, C.E., Wilson, R.E., and Rorrer, G. (2001) Fundamentals of Momentum, Heat and Mass Transfer, 4th edn. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 134. Thelma and Louise [video recording] [1991] (1998) Callie Khouri (writer), Ridley Scott (director), Ridley Scott and Mimi Polk (producers). Culver City, CA: MGM/UA Home Video. 135. Camp, L.J. (1996) We are geeks and we are not guys: The systers mailing list. Wired Women: Gender and New Realities in Cyberspace (pp. 114–25). Seattle: Seal Press. 136. Lafontaine, E. and Tredeau, L. (1986) The frequency, sources, and correlates of sexual harassment among women in traditional male occupations. Sex Roles 15(7–8): 433–42. doi:10.1007/ BF00287982

106  engineering and social justice

137. Pawley, A. (2008) Stories we tell ourselves: patterns in how faculty define “engineering.” Unpublished manuscript. 138. Bix, A. (2002) Equipped for life: Gendered technical training and consumerism in home economics, 1920–1980. Technology and Culture, 43: 728–54. doi:10.1353/tech.2002.0152 139. Frehill, L.M. (2004) The gendered construction of the engineering profession in the United States, 1893–1920. Men and Masculinities, 6(4): 383–403. doi:10.1177/1097184X03260963 140. Oldenziel, R. (2000) Making Technology Masculine: Men, Women, and Modern Machines in America, 1870–1945. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. 141. Stoffer, H. (2000) NHTSA wants to test female crash dummies. Automotive News, January 31, p. 16. 142. Cassell, J. and Jenkins, H., Eds. (2000) From Barbie® to Mortal Kombat: Gender and Computer Games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 143. Brown, W. (2004) Women giving the directions; Now, it’s time for female designers. The Washington Post, April 29, 2004, p. G01. 144. Predd, P.P. (2005) The Gay Engineer: Tech companies are increasingly accepting of gays and lesbians. IEEE Spectrum, 42(2):43–4. 145. Riley, D. (2008) LGBT-friendly workplaces in engineering. Leadership and Management in Engineering, 8(1): 19–23. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1532-6748(2008)8:1(19) 146. Fineman, M. (2005) Averaging at the edges. Foreword to R. O’Brien, Bodies in Revolt: Gender, Disability, and a Workplace Ethic of Care (pp. xiii–xviii). New York: Routledge. 147. Catalano, G.D. (2006) Engineering Ethics: Peace, Justice, and the Earth. San Rafael, CA: Morgan and Claypool. doi:10.2200/S00039ED1V01Y200606ETS001 • • • •

107

chapter 4

Toward a More Socially Just Engineering “No education is politically neutral.” bell hooks [1: 37] What do engineers need to know and be able to do in order to effect social change, and how do we get there from here? This chapter identifies attitudes, skills, and knowledge engineers need to be responsive professionals, responsible citizens, and effective change agents. Identifying these elements points to some shortcomings of engineering education as it is traditionally practiced. Thus, this chapter also offers a road map for bridging the gap from engineers’ traditional education and training to the preparation required for effective engagement in social justice work. Liberative pedagogies for peer education and organizing are presented to assist practicing engineers in building community and developing skills for social justice work.

4.1 HOW DO WE GET THERE FROM HERE? As discussed in the last chapter, engineering has largely reflected the values of mainstream society and of neoliberal, military, and corporate interests. This is due in part to, and continually justified by, engineers’ commitment to considering themselves value-neutral or objective. This set of values has been inculcated in engineers through the engineering education process. If, as Caroline Baillie suggests in the second book in this series [2], engineering serves the political interest of whoever is in power and engineers have the choice to resist or support these interests, what skills do engineers need in order to be effective in their resistance or support of power regimes? If engineering education fails to provide some of the key knowledge and skills required for engaging in social justice work, what can practicing engineers and current engineering students do to fill the gaps? I begin with a discussion of the ways in which social justice work ought to intersect with learning, drawing on Brazilian educator Paulo Freire’s [3] and Karl Marx’s ideas of praxis [4]. This leads to a discussion of the moral direction of engineering education in support of social justice, the kinds of critical thinking required which can augment traditional engineering education toward

108  engineering and social justice

social justice ends, and specific topic areas needed to transform critical thinking into reflective action, or praxis. Next, I examine our overall outlook on education and offer an alternative approach to learning, grounded in social justice movements and geared toward students pursuing formal education as well as adults learning in less formal contexts. Finally, I consider specific learning strategies for acquiring the attitudes, skills, and knowledge needed to effectively work for social change. The intent of this chapter is to offer neither a replacement model for the engineering curriculum nor an augmentation intended to fit into a conventional 4-year degree. It is intended to simply identify the needs that exist for current engineers, conventionally educated, interested in working for social justice in order to make the transition into being effective change agents.

4.2

PRAXIS

Praxis can be a difficult concept to grasp, but it is at the heart of what engineering and social justice must be about. Marx’s notion of praxis (which Freire called reflective action, introduced in Chapter 1) is useful for considering how our expertise as engineers can intersect with community movements for social justice. Community education scholar Mark K. Smith [5] explains the concept of praxis as it is used in critical pedagogy, drawing on Aristotle and Marx, as well as educational philosophers. Praxis is more than just practice, the application of a theoretical concept in the real world. Praxis always begins with relationships, with a problem or question that arises in community. It does not begin with abstract theory or first principles. While the emergence of a problem from a community need can and does happen with some engineering projects, the extent of community engagement or empowerment is often minimized and the importance of relationship de-emphasized. Also, many engineering projects begin with a design idea that is later marketed to the community through strategies that “create needs” among potential consumers through advertising; this kind of artificial need inducement is most certainly not praxis. A second key feature of praxis is moral direction. The question or problem must be considered in the context of ethics—what is the right thing to do in response to the question or problem? This normative aspect of praxis is essential to its definition and to its relationship to social justice. A third key feature of praxis is openness to change. There are no assumptions about what the right process to follow is, or what the right solution/end result is. Process and product, ends and means, thought and action, the general and the specific, the theoretical and the practical are in constant exchange and dialogue. As we think about answers or solutions or goals for change, the process for getting there may change. As we go about the process, the end goals may change. This process must involve communication, and it is fundamentally relational. Smith [5] therefore calls praxis “informed, committed action.” More than just action that follows on reflection, praxis embodies “a commitment to human well-being and the search for truth, and respect for others. It is the action of people who are free and are able to act for themselves.

toward a more socially and just engineering  109

Moreover, praxis is always risky.” It requires critical thinking and ethical judgment. It is “not merely the doing of something,” it is “creative,” “other-seeking and dialogic” [5]. If praxis is the goal, then the first step must be community engagement and listening well for problems that emerge from the community. Listening effectively, understanding group power dynamics, organizing effective community forums in which all are heard all become essential skills. More specifically, empowering communities to speak from their own authority about technical issues requires an attention to power dynamics around the “cult of the expert.” Several models already exist for accomplishing this work around issues of technology in society, notably among risk communicators (e.g., [6]), advocates of democratizing science (see, e.g., [7]), and environmental justice advocates (e.g., [8]).

4.3

ENGINEERING ETHICS FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE

In Chapter 2, I identified the problem of worldview, in which engineers see themselves and the profession as apolitical, objective, and value-neutral, allowing implicit assumptions about the world to govern our choices. Indeed, getting beyond views of truth as objective and absolute is the most fundamental change we need in engineering education. Engineers seem to have trouble stepping outside the profession in order to recognize and acknowledge the influences that already direct our thinking in ways that have significant moral consequences. The Accreditation Board on Engineering and Technology [9] has acknowledged this to a certain extent in the recognition of the need to teach professional ethics in engineering. Engineering ethics has developed in response both to a desire to establish engineering as a profession and to engineering disasters that erode public trust in engineers. Given engineers’ and engineering education’s history of working for industry needs, it may come as no surprise that engineering ethics as it is taught in most engineering schools today focuses on engineers embedded in corporate and government organizations. However, this education is therefore quite limited. In fact, the types of engineering ethics that are taught today are largely business ethics, focused on the needs of industry rather than on some autonomous definition put forth by engineers outside of industry’s influence. The list of what is missing includes the following, all of which are necessary for social justice work.

4.3.1 Autonomy Science and technology studies scholar Gary Downey [10] relates the history of how engineering became embedded in industry in the 1870s, as mass production became the goal, and how engineering education tailored itself to those needs. As engineers have become embedded in other organizations, they have not enjoyed as much autonomy as they had when practicing as independent agents along the professional model of doctors and lawyers. As I noted earlier, Zussman [11] argues that in this respect engineering does not fit the traditional sociological definition of a profession:

110  engineering and social justice

“The technical rationality that is the engineer’s stock-in-trade requires the calculation of means for the realization of given ends. But it requires no broad insight into those ends or their consequences. Engineers are aware of, are trained to be aware of, these limitations; insofar as they do consider ends, they cease to act as engineers.” (122–123) Gary Downey and Juan Lucena [12] observe that the traditional layout of engineering problem sets beginning with “Given:” illustrates how engineers are trained to abdicate responsibility for problem definition. Autonomy and the ability to make independent ethical choices is an essential element of what defines professions in sociological terms. If engineers do not exercise these choices individually and collectively, we may cease to be a profession in at least one important sense. In fact, this recognition and claiming of our autonomy as engineers may be the first crucial step. It is surely one example of what Freire [3] called conscientization, the awakening to realize that we have a choice and can act according to conscience—in ways that are independent of powerful influences, in ways that create social change and work toward social justice.

4.3.2 Macroethics Joseph Herkert [13], the Lincoln Associate Professor of Ethics and Technology at Arizona State, makes a distinction between “microethics”—the individual decisions that make up much of current engineering ethics—and “macroethics”—the largely ignored body of ethical problems that involve collective action of engineers, or society as a whole. Science and technology studies scholars and ethicists Deborah Johnson and Jamesoon Wetmore [14] similarly call for a broadening of engineering ethics to include analysis from the field of science, technology, and society. They argue that considering the complex interactions between technology and society provides a very different perspective on responsibilities of engineers—both increasing and decreasing responsibility in different areas. These perspectives are essential to engineering and social justice because they make a distinction between critical thinking in engineering and critical thinking about engineering [15]. Engineers advocating for social justice must be able to stand outside the profession and take a critical look at what engineers do. It enables us to ask key questions: for whom is engineering done, who wins and who loses by the actions of engineers, what work is considered engineering, and what values underlie the drawing of these professional boundaries.

4.3.3 Morally Deep Ethics George Catalano, in the first book of this series [16], recasts engineering ethics using Lawrence Johnson’s environmental ethic, which extends consideration to ecological entities. Catalano takes this further by arguing that not only should the environment count morally but also others who have been traditionally excluded from moral consideration by the engineering community. Thus,

toward a more socially and just engineering  111

this perspective broadens engineering ethics to make room for social justice questions and, as noted in Chapter 1, combines ideas from deep ecology and environmental justice. Catalano’s morally deep approach asks who is to be included? Who is not at the table currently and needs to be brought in? Catalano cites examples in which engineers engage in projects with new groups who count morally and are recognized as engineering clients: wolves, Mexican peasant farmers, and a disabled person working in a theater. Catalano goes on to propose new processes for engineering design that incorporate a morally deep perspective and evaluate the ends of the work in terms of social justice.

4.3.4 Non-Western Perspectives Engineering professors Nael Barakat and Matthew Carroll [17] have noted the exclusively Western emphasis in engineering ethics and have called for a broadening of topics to include subject areas that are significantly important outside the United States. Notably, topics include respect for human rights; respect for natural resources; respect for intellectual property and indigenous knowledge; and anticipating the social, cultural, political, and economic impacts of technological development. These topics do not receive due consideration in the professional ethics codes of American engineering societies. Barakat and Carroll further call for the incorporation of cultural differences in learning engineering ethics and the incorporation of non-Western approaches for resolving ethical issues.

4.3.5 Ethic of Care Engineering professors Marina Pantazidou and Indira Nair [18] have called for the integration of an ethic of care (discussed in Chapter 1) into engineering education and practice. They use the ethic of care to highlight the importance of attentiveness (caring about, recognition of the need for caring) in the initial problem definition phases of the design process; the importance of responsibility (taking care) in the generation of potential solutions; competence (caregiving) in design selection and implementation; and responsiveness in assessing whether care was received in design assessment. Clearly, the failure to care at each of these stages can itself create social injustice and result in technologies that fail to promote the ends of social justice. The authors note that the ethic of care is particularly helpful for problems “defined in specific context, possibly containing complex interrelationships and most probably requiring an integrated approach to problem solving” (211) and call for incorporation of more of these problems at the undergraduate level to better prepare students technically and ethically for the work ahead. All of these approaches lead to a broadening of ethical thinking in engineering and the development of moral direction, which is different from the default direction of following industry’s lead.

112  engineering and social justice

4.4

CRITICAL THINKING FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE

Social justice advocates need to get the moral direction of our work right; we also have to maintain a sharp analysis of our world in order to discern the best courses of action. Central to this analysis is the process of critical thinking. Critical thinking for social justice incorporates many of the same principles addressed in the previous section on what has been missing from engineering ethics: critical thinkers need to think autonomously, examine a diversity of perspectives including macrolevel and non-Western perspectives, and apply questions that arise from morally deep or caring perspectives. Education scholar Lionel Claris and I [19] have developed a working definition of critical thinking in and about engineering that is relevant to our discussion of engineering and social justice. Here, we consider three key components of our conceptualization of critical thinking as it relates to social justice: the role of epistemic assumptions, the role of the learner/self, and the role of critical theory in the development of a critical perspective on engineering.

4.4.1 Epistemic Assumptions and Worldview In previous chapters, I have discussed the epistemic assumptions of engineering and the ways in which these assumptions limit thinking about social justice. I have not yet discussed how one comes to learn to take on new epistemic assumptions. Educational psychologists Patricia King and Karen Kitchener [20] present a developmental model of reflective judgment that does exactly this, backed up with a vast dataset that has only been augmented in the intervening years. They suggest that these epistemic assumptions underlie what we might call critical thinking, but which the authors call reflective thinking in order to distinguish it from definitions of critical thinking as mere logical thinking or problem solving. Specifically, they build on developmental psychologist William Perry’s [21] model, incorporating John Dewey’s ideas about reflective thinking [22]. In King and Kitchener’s stages of development [20], understandings of truth move from absolute, authority-driven truth, through relativistic truth, to truth that is understood through a dynamic process of questioning, reflecting, and making informed judgments, based on evaluation of evidence, in context and in the midst of uncertainty. As such, these judgments are subject to reevaluation. King and Kitchener’s data on college students suggest that students operate at more than one developmental stage at any given time, and that typically students move from absolute notions of truth to relative ones while in college, and progress further toward reflective judgment after college. (Studies of people who do not go to college reveal an analogous progression through the developmental stages.) Lionel Claris and I [19] seek to incorporate King and Kitchener’s idea of reflective judgment as part of critical thinking. In particular, critical thinking is not merely a set of skills, but a reflective practice grounded in epistemic assumptions that foster reflective judgment. Before all, engineers must recognize that there are other valid frameworks for understanding the world outside of the

toward a more socially and just engineering  113

positivist framework. Critical thinking that entails the development of reflective judgment is an essential component of social justice analysis and action.

4.4.2 Critical Theory, Social Analysis, and Social Justice Teaching critical theory is certainly a direct way to challenge students’ epistemic assumptions around absolute truth and assist their progression toward reflective judgment. More than this, critical theory’s grounding in social reality as discussed in Chapter 1 gives it a direct relevance to social justice. Lionel Claris and I [19] discuss how Foucault’s concepts of power/knowledge and resistance [23] and Derrida’s concepts of deconstruction [24] and questioning the condition of the question [25] demonstrate ways of thinking critically, which go beyond mere logic or problem solving, getting to critical thinking about engineering and getting profoundly to what feminist theorist Donna Haraway [65: 187] calls “critical, reflexive relation,” grounding and evaluating these methods of analysis in social and interpersonal action, their manifestation in our lives. Critical theory is only one of many social and political theories in the social sciences, and other theories in policy and politics and in economics would also be essential reading for engineers seeking to enact social change. I focus on learning critical theory because it contributes capacities for social analysis essential for understanding social justice issues; other contemporary theories often build on or react to critical theory. Honing critical thinking abilities through reading critical theory enables deeper understand­ ing of essential content areas. It helps us understand the institutional nature of prejudice, the con­ nectedness of oppression, and the notion of intersectionality. It also allows for understanding sociotechnical systems and the co-construction of science and society. It helps us understand the behavior of individuals within organizations and organizations in larger political and cultural landscapes. We can begin to understand how social justice issues arise, and how injustice is maintained or dismantled. Critical theory poses questions that can help us reframe the problems that face engineering now, and help us define new ones. Critical theory employed in an engineering classroom can deconstruct authoritative engineering texts, enable students to encounter problems that go beyond “given: find,” and lead students to examine their education, including learning objectives, the course syllabus, and the textbook itself.

4.4.3 The Role of the Learner Self This brings us to the third element of Lionel Claris’s and my discussion of critical thinking: selfreflective processes directed toward the profession and one’s individual role in it, as well as the social, historical, and political contexts of engineering [19]. This is where critical thinking connects with social justice—because analysis is not occurring for its own sake, and is not just driven by ethical

114  engineering and social justice

concerns, but also by the personal investment in those concerns and in the effects of the analysis on real lives. It is not just the question, or even the condition of the question, but also the individual motivation behind the question, that matters. Thus, engineers need to be challenged not only to think ethically and analytically about technology in society or about the profession’s construction, but also to think personally about their values and investment in the profession and in local and global communities. We need to think about our own learning, not just in formal education but also across our lives [27]. This leads us to be self-directed learners [28], continually identifying learning goals, assessing our accomplishments in relation to those goals, and making changes to improve our learning. We must think critically and reflectively to self-evaluate our learning, and to continually reassess our goals. We must know ourselves, think independently and in relation to others in our midst; we must not only question, but also know why we question, if our learning is to make a difference in the world or in our own lives [27].

4.4.4 Critical Thinking + Reflective Action = Praxis Praxis takes critical thinking and places it in a relational context, connecting it with community needs and with action. Thus, the processes of understanding and interpreting phenomena are given a purpose and a moral direction, in order to ultimately seek change. Just as engineers have a professional ethic related to technical competence, so should there be an ethic related to competence in effecting change, utilizing technical knowledge, social understanding, and engaging the community all the while, from the generation of project ideas and problem framing through technical processes, implementation, assessment, and improvements. Many of the elements listed here as skills for reflective action have analogues in engineering education as conventionally practiced today, although those elements are typically geared to corporate and government workplaces more than community or nonprofit contexts.

4.5

COMMUNICATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE

In Chapter 2, I reviewed a couple of jokes about how badly engineers communicate; the profession has a reputation for not possessing communication skills, and worse, not being expected by employers or society to possess them. However, it is increasingly recognized how important those skills are; in fact, they are as essential for business as they are for working for social justice. Written and visual communication skills for engineers often involve writing lab reports, design documents, and other items of a technical nature. Some educators recognize the need to communicate with nontechnical audiences in concise terms that are accessible to the uninitiated. In a social justice context, the communication with lay audiences becomes even more important. An ability to make

toward a more socially and just engineering  115

technical material accessible to lay people in such a way that they can meaningfully utilize information in activities related to engineering and social justice is required. Additionally, writing short pieces for editorials or letters to the editor as well as articles in a newspaper or blog is desirable. This writing tends to utilize more creativity and humor than typical technical writing; style matters much more. Similarly, visual communication takes on a more creative and fun tone, where technical information must be presented in even more accessible ways, and ways that are noticed. The writing of slogans and presentation of those on posters or banners is another form of (written and visual) communication engineers should master in order to be full participants in social justice causes. Oral communication is essential as well in industry and in working for social justice. In industry, oral communication often takes place in meetings, in formal presentations utilizing Power Point or other visual communication tools, and sometimes in community forums. Communication for social justice occurs in meetings that often have a quite different dynamic and tone and in presentations that might utilize more creativity, passion, and humor such as rally speeches. Many communities have endured public meetings convened by government engineers from the local to the federal level who are not skilled in communicating technical information. Add to this mix some common anxieties about local planning efforts or about environmental hazards or the siting and permitting of polluting facilities and disaster can easily strike. Too often, the communicating engineer takes on a position of arrogance, assumes that she/he “knows the real story” and that her/his job is to get the public to accept the version of the truth she/he has been given or has come to understand. There is an expectation that the public will accept her/his authority and come to believe what she/he does based on that authority or on her/his communication of “the science.” Communication for social justice in this context would involve a change in attitude about who holds the knowledge and the authority. It would also involve one skill engineers are typically not taught as part of their communication package — listening. Listening skills require openness and humility toward other perspectives and an ability to empathize with others and their point of view. They require sensitivity to power dynamics that tend to silence certain individuals or privilege the opinions of some over others. Finally, they require attention to who has spoken, who has been left out, and who may not even be present for the conversation.

4.6

COLLABORATION FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE

Industry has demanded that engineers learn how to work in team settings, and a great deal of engineering education has been directed toward this effort. However, the interpretation of “team” is quite variable and may include some assumptions around competition and analogies to participation in sports that do not translate well to social justice work. Some engineering classes are run such that teams “compete” and grading is done relative to other teams’ outcomes, emulating the academic

116  engineering and social justice

interpretation of what takes place in industry. Within teams, individuals often assume roles such that stronger students get more “playing time”—reinforcing their advantage as they do more of the work and get more practice in relevant skills. A more collaborative effort for social justice work might recognize the contribution that each member of a collaboration brings to the work, assigning tasks based on a combination of skills and interests worked out in a democratic, consensus-driven manner. The importance of relationships is paramount. Preserving and growing networks for organizing is one of the goals. Involving as many people as possible supports those aims and is valued.

4.7 ORGANIZING FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE Organizing skills are essential to social justice work. Engineering schools currently teach “leadership and management” instead. Some styles of “leadership and management” may translate, yet most of the time, these are conceived in very top-down ways that do not prepare engineers to work on social justice issues. The ability to facilitate meetings, conversations, or public forums is an important organizing skill. Teaching principles around consensus building, listening, and creating opportunities for participation from everyone support the development of facilitation skills. Strategy is essential to organizing but means something entirely different in a business context. In a social justice context, strategy is based on knowledge of policy and politics, how political decision-making processes work, and how to make effective change. This is a contentious area where groups have distinct ideas about how to be most effective. Ultimately, the ability to step back and recognize that different groups utilize different strategies to meet different goals is helpful, as compared to narrowly choosing one strategy and seeking to apply it universally. Organizing is fundamentally about relationship building, something engineers are almost never taught and something at which many engineers are not naturally adept. At the end of the day, one’s ability to organize rests on the number of participants and investors, and personal relationships are often a major draw to many people’s participation in social justice movements. This is perhaps related to the “ethic of care” mentioned earlier in this chapter. Genuine concern for others and a sense of community are often created in social justice work, and that sense of community is a powerful sustainer of individual efforts toward the common good.

4.8 LEARNING FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE 4.8.1 Attitudes Toward Learning One of the biggest problems with the way engineering is taught today is its reliance on power dynamics and assumptions about knowledge and ability that disempower learners. Previous chapters

toward a more socially and just engineering  117

have discussed the ways in which engineers are taught to obey authority and are not taught to think critically. This is part of a larger problem in which engineering students are taught that they cannot act outside of what they are taught. The grading system becomes the all-important arbiter of a person’s worth; students are invested in it because they believe it determines their future success, more than what they actually know or are able to do. This is an ancient problem, as noted in one of Stoic philosopher Seneca’s letters to Lucilius [29], in which he lamented that too often philosophers learn for the sake of the academy, not for life, and advised Lucilius to learn what was relevant for living. To do this, one must know what one wants to know; that is, one must be an intentional learner. This is part of self-directed learning discussed above. Often, what is relevant for living is not learned in the academy; therefore, we must be open to learning opportunities all around us. We need to be lifelong learners, reflectively questioning, utilizing self-directed learning, with a moral direction. This often requires claiming the authority of one’s experience as well, knowing what one already knows and building upon that. One is not to be subjected to authority figures who presume they know everything and learners know nothing, but to be confident in what one does know with an openness to question it again and again and deepen that knowledge.

4.8.2 Vehicles for Learning Lifelong learners recognize opportunities for learning in a variety of settings and are often able to construct their own learning opportunities. For engineers interested in working for social justice, learning opportunities abound in existing movements for social justice; it may also be worthwhile to create focused learning opportunities that relate engineering and social justice. Learn by doing. Most engineers I know who work on social justice issues gained their experience by getting involved in social justice movements as concerned citizens and working in their expertise as it was needed. This takes a willingness to make mistakes and risk offending others in the process. Problems can emerge if those mistakes serve to alienate others in the group, destroying relationships in the process. Still, experience can be an excellent teacher if one goes in willing to listen, observe, and learn, ready to take responsibility for error, and move forward making changes. Read on your own. No matter what other strategies one uses, reading is a sure way to increase one’s ability to understand social justice issues and connect with other activists. A bibliography on engineering and social justice is being developed as a collective effort facilitated by Martin Wallace and housed at http://esjp.wikispaces.com/webliography. Some books may seem beyond one’s understanding at first, especially when they refer to bodies of knowledge as yet unexplored by the typical engineer. This usually leads to further background reading, which can open up new lines of thought and approaches to doing social justice work. Leverage virtual networks. In the Information Age, it is possible to connect with like-minded people across the country and internationally. Electronic resources, including blogs and wikis, are

118  engineering and social justice

included in the webliography. Some of these electronic resources can link to local social networks, so that one can find community, and introduce oneself with some background knowledge of where people are coming from based on their electronic presence. Continue formal education. While this is likely not necessary, it may be helpful to acquire some knowledge in more formal ways. The benefits of this are having an automatic community for discussing ideas, accountability for getting reading done, experiencing other perspectives on what’s important to read and what’s important about those readings, and receiving feedback on one’s understanding of these new ideas. It can be particularly helpful for topics that one finds challenging. Formal education can also provide opportunities for building social networks or being involved in activist communities on or near a campus.

4.8.3 Create Learning–Action Communities One model that combines several of these elements in a coherent whole would be to establish a learning–action community. If there are like-minded others in one’s neighborhood, campus, workplace, or professional society chapter, it might make sense to form a group. A framework is presented below that draws on community-organizing principles and the liberative pedagogies of Paulo Freire and others. Liberative pedagogies is a term inclusive of critical or radical pedagogies strongly influenced by the work of John Dewey, critical theorists, and the civil rights movement in the United States, and crystallized in Freire’s watershed book Pedagogy of the Oppressed [3]. Freire’s ideas were used in Brazil and later elsewhere in Latin America as part of adult literacy campaigns that ultimately resulted in political empowerment of the poor. Freire’s pedagogy has been deeply influential and has been reinvented for new contexts like in the United States, where feminist and postcolonial critics of radical pedagogy (e.g., [1,30]) have sought to redefine and reshape the ideas toward greater inclusivity and justice. These new liberative pedagogies have been developed for learning about social justice issues particularly around gender, race, and class. The principles of liberative pedagogies are laid out well by Freire [3] and hooks [1]. A concept map that illustrates relationships among these concepts is shown in Figure 4.1. There are clearly multiple ways to relate the concepts of liberative pedagogies. Here, critical thinking, praxis, and reflection are three cornerstones around life-relevant learning. I have arranged other concepts between two of the three cornerstones; thus, between critical thinking and reflection lie concepts that relate to intentional learning: responsibility for learning, self-directed learning, self-knowledge, and the power of questions. Between reflection and praxis lie concepts related to interpersonal interaction in liberative pedagogy: ethics, relationality, power sharing, decentering Western civilization, and sensitivity to different forms of oppression. Finally, between praxis and critical thinking lie attitudes and approaches to thought characteristic of liberative pedagogies: an epistemological

toward a more socially and just engineering  119

FIGURE 4.1: A concept map for liberative pedagogies.

reliance on the authority of experience, welcoming uncertainty, integrative rather than reductionist approaches to material, and attention to process. Items characteristic of liberative pedagogies that have not been discussed so far are explained in more detail below. Sharing power. Leveling the power dynamics so that everyone is both a teacher and a learner is central to liberative pedagogies. In a learning–community, it would be natural to share the load of who leads discussions or develops questions for each meeting. Process matters. A focus on the learning process and the group process is central. Using consensus or other democratic methods of decision-making, making sure everyone’s voice is heard, is important. Creating opportunities for feedback to planners and emphasizing an understanding of the learning process and all that it entails can make people feel more comfortable and hold more ownership of the group. Authority of experience and engagement. One of the goals of liberative pedagogies is to empower learners. Drawing on authority of experience is a way of engaging people based on what they know, and giving them a place of power from which to speak.

120  engineering and social justice

Connect learning to life. As learning draws on experience, so too it should be relevant for life. Whatever the group strives to learn, having clarity about its application for social justice issues of significance to members of the group is vital. This is true on both a group and individual level. Relationality. In a learning–action community, as with any activism or organizing work, interpersonal relationships are very important. People need to feel they have a place, that they belong. Here, relationships are focused around developing learning collaborations or around developing a community of scholars focused on a specific set of topics or research for a specific action. Decenter Western and male civilization. It is important to think critically about what comprises a “canon” for a given topic and to include ideas from people who have traditionally been excluded. This means decentering Western writers and male writers to make room for others as part of the curriculum. Sensitivity to oppression and exclusion. Related to the decentering principle is a concern for how the learning process and content deal with oppression based on gender, race, class, ability, and other forms of oppression. Uncertainty. Creating space for the recognition and consideration of uncertainty and relativism is important to the learning process, especially for topics that shake the foundations of positivist worldviews. Integrative not reductionist. Liberative pedagogies seek to approach problems holistically rather than breaking them down into subparts, which is the natural instinct of most engineers. Stemming from this is a concern for students’ whole selves, not just their intellects, throughout the learning process. Making room for people to bring their whole selves to the learning process is a prerequisite for some of the other work around authority of experience and life relevance to take shape. Reflection. Finally, continual reflection drives liberative pedagogies as individuals and the group take stock of what is happening and where things ought to be going.

4.8.4 Learning Models and Methods With these principles in mind, one can choose learning models and methods that suit a group’s personalities and interests. Some possible models that integrate learning and action include: •

A book group model with a praxis component. A group of people (potentially including both engineers and nonengineers) come together around a certain issue, do some research and reading, then plan responsive action.

 It is ironic that this very presentation of liberative pedagogies like other concepts in this book verges on reductionism. I have broken the concept down into component parts because I felt it could be more readily understood, even as I recognize the concepts as inseparable. To what extent one ought to make such tradeoffs is an open question.



toward a more socially and just engineering  121

• •

•

•

4.9

An institutional change model that chooses an issue within an institution of which one is a member (or not), and a mixture of research, reading, and action ensues. Forum theater, a type of theater developed by Augusto Boal that emerged in Brazil at the same time as Freire’s pedagogy of liberation [3], involves using theater as a tool to help people come into consciousness about the world and their lives and take action in response. Viewers become “spec-actors” who are invited to participate at a point in the performance and change the scene. Other Boalian exercises and strategies can be useful on a shorter scale and without people very familiar with theater [31]. Baillie [32] has discussed using a performance of Copenhagen [33] and student-written plays about technology and society to spark dialogue about science and engineering ethics. A social networking model that involves building community and inviting speakers who can inspire and work with organizers might be a good way to start before engaging in more serious research or learning activities. Focused work, either individually or in groups, with a peer feedback mechanism for improving the work can be a way to maintain a strong focus on small accomplishments while improving skills.

CONCLUSION

In this chapter, I have developed a sense of the content knowledge and skill sets one would want to pursue, leading to effective practices that support the ends of social justice. I have also discussed processes by which one might pursue these skills and knowledge, employing liberative pedagogies. Next, I will consider examples of engineers taking action for social justice utilizing different approaches to their work.

References 1. hooks, b. (1994) Teaching to Transgress. New York: Routledge. 2. Baillie, C. (2006) Engineers Within a Local and Global Society. San Rafael, CA: Morgan and Claypool. doi:10.2200/S00059ED1V01Y200609ETS002 3. Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Translated by Myra Bergman Ramos. New York: Seabury Press. 4. Marx, K. [1845] (1976) Theses on Feuerbach. In K. Marx and F. Engels, Collected Works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, 1845–47, Vol. 5: Theses on Feuerbach, The German Ideology and Related Manuscripts. New York: International Publishers. 5. Smith, M.K. (1999) Praxis. The Informal Education Web. Accessed August 21, 2007, from http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-praxis.htm.

122  engineering and social justice

6. Morgan, G.M., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., and Atman, C. (2001) Risk communication: A mental models approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 7. Sclove, R.E. (1995) Democracy and Technology. New York: Guilford Press. 8. Corburn, J. (2005) Street Science: Community Knowledge and Environmental Health Justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 9. ABET (2008) Criteria for accrediting engineering programs. Accessed January 10, 2008, from http://www.abet.org/Linked Documents-UPDATE/Criteria and PP/E001 07-08 EAC Criteria 11-15-06.pdf. 10. Downey, G.L. (2007) Low cost, mass use: American engineers and the metrics of progress. History and Technology, 23: 3, 289–308. doi:10.1080/07341510701300387 11. Zussman, R. (1985) Mechanics of the Middle Class: Work and Politics Among American Engineers. Berkeley: University of California Press. 12. Downey, G.L. and Lucena, J.C. (1997) Engineering Selves: Hiring Into a Contested Field of Education. In: G.L. Downey and J. Dumit (Eds.) Cyborgs and Citadels: Anthropological Interventions in Emerging Sciences and Technologies. Santa Fe, NM: The SAR Press, 117–142. 13. Herkert, J. R. (2004) Microethics, macroethics, and professional engineering societies. Emerging Technologies and Ethical Issues in Engineering: Papers from a Workshop October 14–15, 2003. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 14. Johnson, D.G. and Wetmore, J. (2008) Technology and Society: Building our Sociotechnical Future. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 15. Riley, D.M. and Claris, L. (2007) Learning to think critically in and about engineering: A liberative perspective. ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, June 24–27, 2007, Honolulu, HI. 16. Catalano, G. D. (2006) Engineering Ethics: Peace, Justice, and the Earth. San Rafael, CA: Morgan and Claypool, 2006. doi:10.2200/S00039ED1V01Y200606ETS001 17. Barakat, N. and Carroll, M.C. (2005) Globalization of engineering ethics education. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings, 6947–53. 18. Pantazidou, M. and Nair, I. (1999) Ethic of care: Guiding principles for engineering teaching and practice. Journal of Engineering Education, 88: 205–12. 19. Claris, L. and Riley, D. (2008) Situation critical: A liberative perspective on learning to think critically in and about engineering. Unpublished draft. 20. King, P.M. and Kitchener, K.S. (1994) Developing Reflective Judgment: Understanding and Promoting Intellectual Growth and Critical Thinking in Adolescents and Adults. San Francisco: JosseyBass. 21. Perry, W.G. (1968) Forms of Ethical and Intellectual Development in the College Years: A Scheme. Cambridge, MA: Bureau of Study Counsel, Harvard University.

toward a more socially and just engineering  123

22. Dewey, J. (1933) How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. Boston: D.C. Heath. 23. Foucault, M. (1980). Truth and Power. In: C. Gordon (Ed.) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977 (pp. 131–133). New York: Pantheon. 24. Derrida, J. (1976) Of Grammatology. Translated by G.C. Spivak. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 25. Derrida [videorecording] (2002) Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering Kofman, directors. Separately translated by Lionel Claris. Excerpt accessed January 23, 2008, from http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=oA5UUPqsFE0. 26. Haraway, D. (1991) Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York: Routledge. 27. Riley, D.M. and Claris, L. (2008) Developing and assessing students’ capacity for lifelong learning. International Journal of Engineering Education, in press. 28. Costa, A. and Kallick, B. (2004) Assessment Strategies for Self-Directed Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. 29. Seneca, Lucius Annaeus (1996) Epistula CVI, Ad Lucilium epistuale morales (with an English translation by Richard M. Gummere). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 30. Luke, C. and Gore, J. (1992) Feminisms and Critical Pedagogy. New York: Routledge. 31. Boal, A. (1992) Games for Actors and Non-Actors. Translated by Adrian Jackson. New York: Routledge. 32. Baillie, C. (2007) Building the Impossible. ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, June 24–27, 2007, Honolulu, HI. 33. Freyn, M. (2004) Copenhagen. New York: Samuel French Inc. Plays. • • • •

125

chapter 5

Turning Knowledge Into Action: Strategies for Change “One must prove the truth, that is, the reality and power, the this-worldliness of one’s thinking in practice. . . .The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.” Karl Marx [1: 8] Change strategies are presented, building on the model of education as an organizing tool presented in the previous chapter. Case studies of change brought about by individuals or small groups of engineers are presented. Strategies profiled employ various levels of power and influence, coming from the grassroots public, the shop floor, the executive office, and the cube farm.

5.1

CASE STUDIES FOR INSPIRATION AND CRITIQUE

The following case studies identify work that can be characterized as engineering for social justice. Each is an example of praxis: a community need that leads to critical thinking, research, engineering, with meaningful community participation. Each case study showcases different strategies or approaches to social justice work. Not everyone involved in the organizations presented here is an engineer by training, or even an engineer as defined by what they do in some conventional sense (e.g., design, technical analysis). But the work is engineering for social justice, work that engineers interested in social justice might aspire to undertake. These examples represent the tip of the iceberg; one can point to more organizations or individuals doing similar work or employing similar models for different work. More groups form every day. Many models can be critiqued from a variety of social justice perspectives. Will their strategy ultimately produce the kind of change intended? Will new social justice problems be created as a byproduct? Is there something they have not taken into account, someone left out, someone adversely affected? These critiques are left as an open exercise for the reader. We can use critiques to challenge ourselves to do better and take the next steps toward a more just world.

126  engineering and social justice

5.2

CASE STUDY 1. USERS DESIGNING FOR USERS: WHIRLWIND WHEELCHAIR INTERNATIONAL AND PROJIMO

Community-based rehabilitation expert David Werner and the Program of Rehabilitation Organized by Disabled Youth of Western Mexico (PROJIMO) [2], a grassroots rehabilitation nonprofit organization run and organized by disabled youth in Mexico, have written a book full of examples of approaches to individualized assistive technologies designed in context. PROJIMO is a community group of disabled people in Mexico who collaborate with users to create assistive devices that meet users’ needs, which vary based on any number of factors such as day-to-day activities and interests, cultural expectations, and the surrounding physical environment. The back of the book lists nearly 50 organizations around the world doing similar work in Norway and Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka and Guyana, Thailand and Nicaragua. Werner is a biologist and educator who joined the work via an interest in health and later became an engineer of assistive technologies, along with many users with whom he works collaboratively. Engineering professor Peter Pfaelzer and attorney Marc Krizack [3] describe a descriptive design process used at Whirlwind Wheelchair International, in which wheelchair riders play an active collaborative role. Whirlwind Wheelchair grew out of a partnership between Ralf Hotchkiss (Figure 5.1), a wheelchair rider who began designing low-cost wheelchairs suited to use in developing communities around 1980, and Peter Pfaelzer. Today, they continue to teach their collaborative design methodology and advocate for policies and practices that lead to individuals in developing countries obtaining wheelchairs that best enable them to pursue their activities and interests independently and be involved with their community and society.

FIGURE 5.1: Ralf Hotchkiss, Whirlwind Wheelchair. Accessed March 2, 2008, from www.sfsu.edu/ ~news/2005/spring/58.htm.

Turning Knowledge Into Action: Strategies for Change  127

The models represented here empower users by involving them meaningfully in the design process, thus providing assistive technologies that support participation in community and individual independence. The employed design processes change the relationship of people to the technologies they use and upend a power dynamic that perpetuates dependence, gaps in communication and understanding, and suboptimal designs for assistive devices.

5.3

CASE STUDY 2. CHALLENGING PHARMACEUTICAL PROFITEERING: ONE WORLD HEALTH

One World Health is a nonprofit pharmaceutical company with a plan to provide affordable drugs for infectious diseases in the developing world [4]. Victoria Hale (Figure 5.2), a former Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug evaluator and researcher who left Genentech in 1998 with a list of ailments for-profit firms neglected or were unable to address cost-effectively, founded the Institute for One World Health. She began working immediately on a drug to treat visceral leishmaniasis, which infects about half a million people a year in India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sudan, and Brazil; of these, about 200,000 die. The new drug, approved by the Indian government in 2006 [5], shows a 94.6% cure rate and stimulates an immune response that offers lifelong protection from future infections. The One World Health [6] website projects a cost of $10 per course of treatment, about one-tenth the cost of current treatments [4]. The company accepts donated intellectual property and utilizes in-country pharmaceutical production facilities to keep costs down. It draws on the expertise of many scientists and engineers around the world with years of experience in the pharmaceutical industry and infectious disease research. Moreover, it creates an environment in which for-profit firms are more likely to partner with nonprofit firms, as the French pharmaceutical company Sanofi-Aventis recently did with

FIGURE 5.2: Victoria Hale, One World Health. Photograph by Andy Berry, Orange Photography. Accessed March 2, 2008, from www.oneworldhealth.org/about/ceo_message.php.

128  engineering and social justice

the Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative, a project of Medecins Sans Frontieres and academics in the health field, to provide malaria medication at cost [7].

5.4

CASE STUDY 3. WATCH-DOGGING THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY: CITIZENS GROUPS TAKE ON VERMONT YANKEE

In 2002, just as the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant was reaching year 30 of its 40-year projected lifespan, it was bought by Mississippi-based Entergy Corporation. Since then, numerous changes at the plant, combined with a few mishaps involving aging infrastructure (Figure 5.3) have increased the level of citizen activism. Among other things, Entergy sought an increase of the power output of the plant by an unprecedented 20%, the approval for storing future nuclear waste on site (like other facilities in the U.S., they have been stockpiling waste since the plant opened), and an extension of their 2012 licensing deadline to 2032. In 2006, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) granted Entergy’s request to increase power output by 20%, after what the NRC called “the most extensive review of its kind” [8: B3]. The New England Coalition against Nuclear Pollution and other opponents expressed the concern that “the plant’s age and the increased power production will create vibration and stress critical com-

FIGURE 5.3: Vermont Yankee’s cooling tower failure in August 2007 raises concerns about aging nuclear facilities. Accessed March 2, 2008, from http://www.newenglandcoalition.org/. Photo submitted anonymously to Brattleboro Reformer.

Turning Knowledge Into Action: Strategies for Change  129

ponents of the plant” [8: B3]. Jim Dyer of the NRC countered that they took “great care to identify and address technical concerns with safely operating the plant at increased power” [8: B3]. Just 4 days later, the Boston Globe reported, “A 20 percent power increase at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant has been put on hold until a problem with excess vibration in a main steam line is resolved, a US NRC spokesman said yesterday” [9: B2]. What did plant opponents know that Entergy and the NRC did not know? Reading the public documents from the review process, it is clear that safety concerns were raised repeatedly by many people with different kinds of credentials.

5.4.1 Industry Insiders Two nuclear engineers and energy consultants, with experience dating back to the 1970s including consulting with management of nuclear plants as well as delivering plaintiff-side expert testimony, raised safety and process concerns to the NRC [10]. It makes sense that some engineers who believe in the promise of nuclear power as a safe source of electricity with no direct carbon emissions would want to ensure the safe operations of plants in the United States, in order to protect the industry in the long term.

5.4.2 Public Servants The state Department of Public Service, including state engineer William Sherman and others, raised specific detailed technical questions about the plant operation and its plans to increase power output [11]. Bill Sherman, in particular, took on the NRC for apparently changing its policy on regulating accident containment pressures [12]. Surely, citizens’ groups and the general concern of the population of Vermont’s citizens enabled the state officials to challenge the NRC as strongly as it did. The technical detail of the challenge requires understanding the minutiae of not only the Vermont Yankee plant’s operation but also the history of decisions made by the NRC.

5.4.3 Whistle-Blowers and Advocates David Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists, participated in the Vermont Yankee uprate process and commented publicly that “There’s nothing that requires them to increase power pressure by 20 percent, other than greed. There ought to be some sanity involved, so that we do not sacrifice safety just so the company can make a few more dollars” [12]. Lochbaum worked for 17 years in nuclear power plants as a nuclear engineer. He became a whistle-blower in the early 1990s when his attempts to draw attention to a safety problem he and a coworker discovered were ignored first by plant management, then the energy company, and finally the NRC. Ultimately, they appealed to Congress, and the issue was resolved not only at the plant

130  engineering and social justice

in question but also at other plants around the country [13]. Lochbaum’s status as a whistle-blower provides him more freedom to comment on the motivation of Entergy Corporation in this struggle and to advocate for the concerns of both citizens and scientists involved in the issues before the NRC.

5.4.4 Concerned Citizens Ray Shadis, a member of the New England Coalition, is not an engineer, but after decades of studying nuclear power plants in his role as watchdog, he has developed an equivalent career’s worth of expertise. Many other members of his group and other groups, such as the Citizens Action Network and Nuclear Free Vermont, have developed similar kinds of expertise. How does one acquire information on nuclear power facilities, especially now that terrorism concerns have made such information less accessible? Once one obtains this information, how can a citizen with no engineering education interpret the documents? Some concerned citizens may have formal training in science or engineering and, of course, pass on that knowledge, but in many cases, information is acquired independently. Citizens develop the kinds of analytical ability engineers are taught in formal settings in order to do the work to which they are called. The example of nuclear power is just one issue related to technology and social justice with which engineers could be involved on a local level. To find other examples, I briefly scanned a list of nonprofit groups in my area and found several opportunities for engineers to get involved, in my relatively sparsely populated corner of Massachusetts: •

•

•

Members of several existing community development and environmental justice groups in Holyoke, MA formed a coalition called Holyoke Organized to Protect the Environment (HOPE) to oppose a proposed waste transfer facility that would have added to local air pollution problems in a community that already bears more than its share of the environmental burden for the region and suffers higher rates of asthma. In fall 2007, one member organization, Nuestras Raices, helped organize a citizen air-monitoring project aimed at developing estimates of pollution sources, which would increase with the proposed waste transfer station. The Free Press, a locally-based national nonprofit, has recently run a campaign on net neutrality, seeking to keep bandwidth equally available to small as well as large not-for-profit and for-profit organizations. The National Priorities Project, a locally-based national nonprofit that monitors the federal budget and military spending, works to educate citizens so that we can work to change federal budget priorities. What better way for engineers to work to decrease the military emphasis in engineering than to work for less military spending and more on infrastructure development, environmental protection, or renewable energy?

Turning Knowledge Into Action: Strategies for Change  131

Engineers involved in groups such as these may work as experts or as citizens, wherever our talents are needed and wherever we can contribute. Who knows in what ways our engineering backgrounds may prove indispensable?

5.5

CASE STUDY 4. BEING A CHANGE AGENT: BARBARA WAUGH AND HEWLETT-PACKARD

Barbara Waugh [14] (Figure 5.4) writes in her memoir about her career as a change agent at Hewlett-Packard (HP), where she increased minority hires, created networks for isolated and tokenized women, reversed HP’s support for Governor Wilson’s budget reforms that would have cut benefits for Aid to Families with Dependent Children in California, and visioned and implemented global corporate responsibility for HP. A former activist in the civil rights movement, the peace movement, and the women’s movement, she felt that she would have more impact in the corporate sector and brought all of her tools from social justice work to her career at the company. She describes in detail how she made changes in each case, utilizing many skills I have identified in the last chapter as important—building relationships, reframing issues, amplifying the positive work already taking place, creating opportunities to bring like-minded people together, understanding the larger context, and remembering who she works for (hint: it is not HP). Barbara Waugh does not have a background in engineering but in psychology and theology (and she suggests that this placed her on the margins in HP and made her less threatening and able to accomplish more). However, her memoir contains stories of co-conspirators who are engineers and were drivers for change as well. An engineer could follow her example to be a change agent in any corporate context, provided that she/he learns the tools and approaches.

FIGURE 5.4: Barbara Waugh. Accessed March 2, 2008, from www.wtci.org/CWIT/images/Barbara Waughweb.gif.

132  engineering and social justice

One could also be a change agent within other kinds of organizations, such as an engineering professional society. Most have policy committees that can create statements for approval by the professional society, which translates into government advocacy. For example, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) takes many positions on water management, but does not have a position on water privatization. A civil engineer change agent could serve on a policy committee in order to create such a statement.

5.6

CASE STUDY 5. WHISTLE-BLOWING: BUNNATINE GREENHOUSE

Blowing the whistle is sometimes thought of as the opposite of working within the system, but whistle-blowers often come from high places within the system and spent a great deal of time working within the system prior to blowing the whistle. Often, they act with the intent of remaining true to the ideals which drew them to their work in the first place. Above, I already discussed the story of David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer who had to take his safety concerns all the way to Congress in order to have them addressed. Bunnatine Greenhouse (Figure 5.5) is another such whistle-blower; she was the Chief Contracts Officer at the Army Corps of Engineers, with a bachelor’s degree in math and three master’s degrees, including one in engineering management from George Washington University [15]. Washington Post staff writer Neely Tucker [16] provides a detailed account of events leading up to Greenhouse’s going public. Hired in 1997 by the Corps Director to restore integrity and order to a process that had become too reliant on buddy networks over qualifications, Greenhouse resisted

FIGURE 5.5: Bunnatine Greenhouse. Accessed March 2, 2008, from www.qdeansloan.com/images/ Bunnatine Greenhouse.jpg.

Turning Knowledge Into Action: Strategies for Change  133

approving and later testified to Congress regarding a 5-year emergency no-bid contract issued to Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) for a variety of services in Iraq. Her discomfort arose from the knowledge that other firms could do the work and should be given a chance to bid and from the fact that an “emergency” contract need only last for a year before consideration for renewal. Greenhouse did not actively seek to go public, but her notations expressing her concerns on the contract itself became known through a media Freedom of Information Act request on war-related contracts. This coalesced with a separate Pentagon audit that revealed that KBR had overbilled the government $61 million for fuel in Iraq. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in order to quell that controversy, granted KBR a waiver in a blatant end run around Greenhouse, waiting until she was out sick and rushing the documents through. Tucker [16] further enriches the analysis with a description of the workplace dynamics Greenhouse encountered as an African American woman, prior to the contracting issue, even prior to the beginning of the Iraq War. Lt. Col. Ballard, her first boss and the first African American Director of the Army Corps of Engineers, was well aware of race- and gender-based animosity regularly directed at Greenhouse, once stepping in to reprimand an attorney who had behaved inappropriately toward her in a staff meeting. Once Ballard left, her job evaluations went from spectacular to horrific, and Greenhouse filed a race and gender discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. These complaints were never investigated. Instead, in 2005, for doing her job and acting in keeping with the public trust, Greenhouse was demoted out of the Senior Executive Service and relieved of her responsibilities for overseeing international contracts. One silver lining is that both houses of the 110th Congress passed legislation on government contract accountability intended to limit no-bid emergency contracting [17]. Despite the existence of some legal protection for whistle-blowers, the reality is that whistleblowing often results in retaliation, with many whistle-blowers finding themselves entirely without work, in bankruptcy, or facing lawsuits. Joseph Mangan, for example, was an aerospace engineer working for a supplier of microprocessors for the Airbus A380 when he became concerned about the risk of rapid cabin depressurization on the aircraft. There were software glitches that could re­ sult in the depressurization valves opening when they are not supposed to. Each valve had only one motor operating it, and all four valves were to use the same processors and software, with no manual override. (Other aircraft have redundancies such as three motors per valve with different processors and software for each motor, plus a manual override capacity.) When the company he worked for did not respond, he took the issue up with the European aviation authorities. His family faced eviction and bankruptcy when his company, located in Vienna, fired him and pursued both civil and criminal cases against him for disclosure of proprietary documents (he was fined $185,000 for posting information on his blog) [18].

134  engineering and social justice

5.7

CASE STUDY 6. INSIDE AGITATING: PROFESSOR STEVE SLABY AND STUDENT ACTIVISM AGAINST MILITARY RESEARCH

Engineering historian Matt Wisnioski [19] offers an analysis of the roles scientists and engineers played in social protest in the 1960s, with three case studies. In Chapter 3, I discussed all three (the actions of civil engineering professor Steve Slaby at Princeton, the shift of the MIT fluid dynamics lab away from military applications, and the formation and activities of Science for the People). Any of these would be excellent case studies for engineering and social justice, but the story of Steve Slaby is especially relevant for those working in isolation to understand the power of a single individual acting alone inside the system. Slaby had been involved in the civil rights movement and peace movement in the 1960s and began to teach some courses in the politics department on these topics. In 1967, when an article in the Princeton student paper focused on the work of the Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA), a private think tank contracted with the Department of Defense (DoD), the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) initiated a sit-in and faculty circulated a petition to end the relationship between Princeton and the IDA. Wisnioski observes that while the IDA was an easy target for students to protest (Figure 5.6), the larger issue of DoD funding for

FIGURE 5.6: Princeton students protest on the steps of the Institute for Defense Analysis, May 1970. Accessed January 23, 2008, from princeweb1.princeton.edu/photoExpansion.jsp?id=6686. Courtesy of Princeton University Archives. Department of Rare Books and Special Collections. Princeton University Library.

Turning Knowledge Into Action: Strategies for Change  135

faculty research was far more nebulous. This is where Slaby was able to deepen the conversation and take the issue further with faculty and administrators. He doggedly asked for public revelations of the nature of work being done in engineering, the identity of funders, and the numbers of students involved. Wisnioski notes the singularity of Slaby doing this from his position as an engineering professor: “Unquestionably, among the critics he was the closest to its sources and its consequences” [19: 320]. This resulted in a university committee that criticized some engineering departments for their defense involvement and a resultant shift in focus from military to environmental problems. Perhaps more profound albeit less tangible was the impact Slaby had on engineering students as a role model of an engineer invested in peace and willing to challenge power structures in order to achieve it. In a sea of professors who run from apolitical to right wing, possibly sprinkled here and there with a closet lefty who would never let it be known among colleagues, Slaby stood out, proof that one could be an engineer without adopting conservative political values and that one could be in engineering and uphold principles of peace and social justice.

5.8

CASE STUDY 7. ORGANIZING AROUND OUR EXPERTISE: DELHI SCIENCE FORUM

The Delhi Science Forum (DSF) was founded in 1978 in order to work on popular access to science and on science and technology policy. It produces reports on science and technology issues of importance to India and the rest of the world including energy, telecommunications, intellectual property, and global trade. DSF seeks to make science accessible to the public through legal advocacy; grassroots campaigns; educational events like street plays, exhibitions, and workshops; and publications. Groups operating on similar models exist around the world, with different focuses, orientations, and strategies specific to their location. In the United States, the closest similar group may have been Science for the People, discussed in Chapter 3. In addition to these, there are more focused groups. Consumer’s Union leverages science and engineering in the public interest to help consumers make better informed choices, preventing not only fleecing but also potential injury from hazardous products. Engineers without Borders and other similar organizations seek to bring together engineers interested in meeting basic human needs and working to end poverty around the world. Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility focuses specifically on science and technology policy issues related to computers and information technology. Digital Queers, founded by Tom Rielly and Karen Wickre, sought to leverage connections of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the high-tech industry to build organizing infrastructure for the LGBT community, working to wire nonprofits with donated skills, time, and equipment [20]. Finally, a large number of professional networking groups exist to increase the success of underrepresented groups in the sciences and engineering [21,22].

136  engineering and social justice

5.9

CASE STUDY 8. MAKING A LIVING WHILE MAKING A DIFFERENCE: JONATHAN ROSE

What if there were an engineering firm committed to social justice principles? What would it look like? What projects would it undertake? Who would be its clients? So far, we’ve considered several nonprofits engaged in engineering work, including KickStart, Whirlwind Wheelchair International, and One World Health. But can a conventionally modeled for-profit engineering firm serve unconventional social justice ends? One attempt to do this is the multidisciplinary real estate development firm Jonathan Rose Companies, founded with the mission “to repair the fabric of communities.” Engineers, architects, planners, and real estate professionals work together to create community development plans that lead to mixed-use and mixed-income communities with appropriate access to public transit, preserved open space, and opportunities for residents to create meaningful livelihoods. They seek to preserve both the ecological balance and the culture of communities in which they work [23]. For example, a project to develop David and Joyce Dinkins Gardens in Harlem produced 85 units of affordable housing including units for youth coming out of foster homes. In addition to a host of green design features that save energy, harvest rainwater, and reduce costs, the project includes community gardens, an educational garden of native plants, and a Construction Trades Academy which will provide job training opportunities [24].

5.10

CASE STUDY 9. DEMOCRATIZING TECHNOLOGY: THE INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE SHOP NETWORK

One excellent example of praxis realized is the model of the science shop, first conceived in the Netherlands in the 1970s and implemented around the world. However, in the United States, they have most often been conceived specifically as university–community partnerships for communitybased learning or research. The International Science Shop Network [25] exists as a clearinghouse for individuals and groups working with the science shop model, undertaking science questions with public resonance with the participation of communities who otherwise could not afford to undertake the work. Feminist science studies scholar Lisa Weasel [26] proposes extending this model to create feminist science shops which would entertain concerns and questions brought by women, undertaking the work with their full participation. University of Amsterdam scholars of technology dynamics Loet Leydesdorff and Janelle Ward [27] present an analysis of the science shop model based on 21 case studies collected across Europe. Engineering-related projects included studying: •

Stakeholders’ views of the bicycle as a technology through literature review and interviews with cyclists, public officials, and traffic planners to assist the Danish Cycling Federation in their work on traffic planning.

Turning Knowledge Into Action: Strategies for Change  137

• • • •

Environmental management in a day care center. Drinking water quality in the community, comparing problems in treatment plants, formulating appropriate solutions, and organizing a public forum for community discussion. Environmental impacts of waste waters in a local river, on behalf of an ecology and tourism nongovernmental organization (NGO). Environmental impacts of a planned tunnel on behalf of one NGO, which led to some conflicts among local environmental organizations, resulting in a second science shop project about cooperation and communication among environmental groups.

In all these projects, students bring to bear more than technical expertise, gaining skills in social science research, such as interviewing and analyzing qualitative data, and in engineering professionalism such as working with clients, collaborating with team members, managing projects, and effective communication. Each project brings both the specific benefits of addressing a local need and the added benefits of increased citizen engagement in the projects of science and engineering. In the United States, somewhat different models have been adopted at many universities as part of community-based learning and research efforts, or as service learning projects [28]. In engineering, many faculty connect with their institution’s own efforts; additionally, Purdue University has launched an engineering-specific program known as Engineering Projects in Community Service (EPICS) (http://epics.ecn.purdue.edu/), now franchised on other campuses [29].

5.11

CASE STUDY 10. BRINGING US THE WEEKEND AND THEN SOME: THE BOEING ENGINEERS’ STRIKE

In February and March of 2000, 19,500 Boeing engineers and technologists engaged in what was called the largest white-collar strike in US history [30,31] (Figure 5.7). For 40 days, members of the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA) held out for high wages and better benefits, resisting Boeing’s moves to break the strike [32]. Participation in the strike was widespread, with 85–90% of the engineering employees participating including many non duespaying members [31]. The strike damaged the company significantly, stunting its ability to deliver aircraft. Revenues fell 31% in the first quarter compared with the previous year, and profits fell 11%. In the first quarter, Boeing delivered only 75 planes, when they had expected to deliver nearly 50 more [33]. Work on military contracts, including the B-1 bomber and the Joint Strike Fighter, fell behind schedule. On Wall Street, stock values fell from $44.63 to $35.63 over the course of the strike, recovering only after a settlement was reached [31]. Once the strike ended, Boeing caught up quickly and recovered its production levels by July [34]. In the end, engineers won wage increases of 8% in the first year and 4.5% in subsequent years, bonuses of up to $2500, the extension of health benefits to domestic partners, and the ability to

138  engineering and social justice

FIGURE 5.7: Boeing worker on strike, 2000. Accessed March 2, 2008, from http://freepages.family. rootsweb.com/~bobofwa/02-10-00_Bob_on_picket_duty.jpg. Photograph by Valorie Cowan Zimmerman; used with permission from Bob Zimmerman.

decide to make union dues mandatory for workers. They staved off Boeing’s attempts to cut healthand life-insurance benefits [35,31]. The power of the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA) is derived from its alliance with the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), which it had forged less than 6 months prior to striking. In the months prior to the strike, more and more employees joined the union, and the backing from AFL-CIO as well as other unions acting in solidarity, provided much needed moral and financial support [31]. Teamster United Parcel Service (UPS) drivers refused to cross picket lines to deliver parts, union railroad engineers left fuselages on the side of the tracks, and Boeing machinists (whose contract did not permit them to strike) enacted a slowdown to further affect production [30]. At Boeing, the 1998 purchase of McDonnell Douglas resulted in the adoption of a business approach that prioritized stock prices over everything, leading to layoffs and costing the company some clout in the aerospace community [30]. Similar situations continue to arise from other corporate mergers. Thus, the Boeing strike and the conditions that led up to it can be seen in the larger context of a movement among white-collar workers to organize against management efforts to reduce benefits and other forms of compensation, with the strike helping to spur union efforts to organize among white-collar workers and serve as a warning to management everywhere to pay attention to the concerns of this group of employees [36].

Turning Knowledge Into Action: Strategies for Change  139

USA Today journalist Ted Fishman’s analysis of the strike [37] points out that engineers are not the typical strikers because management often recognizes the advantages of sharing power and profits with that group; he argues that this could change if salaries and benefits do not keep up with other high-tech jobs, and if management does not involve engineers in key decisions. Boeing did not do better by its engineers because it had previously gotten away with it, and only by striking could the engineers achieve a better deal. This was a momentous strike in U.S. history, something engineers can be proud is part of our history as well. Even as we celebrate these achievements, we ought also to remember those stories that are less dramatic, where unionized engineers fight to retain wages, retirement benefits, and health benefits, as well as to prevent layoffs, downsizing, and outsourcing through the more mundane processes of collective bargaining without a strike. Although less contentious, the gains are no less important for workers and their families. Just as other unions supported SPEEA, unionized engineers also work in solidarity with other unions, joining picket lines where other workers are striking. They work legislatively to lobby for expanded rights and protections for workers at home and abroad. They question presidential candidates about their positions on labor issues, technology issues, and other concerns. Even at job sites where engineers are not organized for collective bargaining, it can be helpful for individuals to subscribe to publications from national unions, such as the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) or the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), to stay connected with important issues and add one more voice. What might happen if this collective bargaining power were leveraged on a broader scale? It was noted in Chapter 3 that engineers have an unusual place in industrial organizations; how could union organizing change the power dynamics, and what might that mean for the behavior of large industrial organizations?

5.12

CONCLUSION

There is no single strategy for change, no one right way for engineers to work for social justice. The case studies presented here can provide ideas and inspiration and remind us that there are engineers working for social justice and that the possibilities for change increase when we work together and when we make these stories more visible to one another. In the introduction to this chapter, I noted that I would leave critiques to the reader. It is certainly possible to raise questions about each of these case studies, whether the ends are really directed toward one’s own conception of social justice, whether means are effective or might produce new injustices. For now, let us let these stories stand as important efforts that have gone before; they present a challenge to us to act as boldly in our own lives. If there are those among us with the will and ability to improve upon these efforts, more power to you!

140  engineering and social justice

References 1. Marx, K. [1845] (1976) Theses on Feuerbach. In K. Marx and F. Engels (Eds.) Collected Works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, 1845–47: Vol. 5. Theses on Feuerbach, The German Ideology and Related Manuscripts. New York: International Publishers. 2. Werner, D. and PROJIMO (1998) Nothing About Us Without Us: Developing Innovative Technologies For, By and With, Disabled Persons. Palo Alto: Health Wrights. Available at http://www. dinf.ne.jp/doc/english/global/david/dwe001/dwe00101.htm. 3. Pfaelzer, P. and Krizack, M. (2000) Wheelchair riders in control: WWI’s model of technology transfer, June 1, 2000. Accessed January 15, 2008, from http://www.whirlwindwheelchair. org/articles/current/article_c01/article_c01.htm. 4. Stix, G. (2004) Making drugs, not profits. Scientific American, 290(5): 42–4. 5. Pharma Marketletter (2006) Paromycin approved by India’s Drug Controller General. Pharma Marketletter, September 14, 2006. 6. One World Health (2008) History of One World Health. Accessed January 15, 2008, from http://www.oneworldhealth.org/about/history.php. 7. Jack, A. (2007) Anti-malaria drug to sell at cost price. Financial Times, March 2, 2007, Europe edition, p. 7. 8. Bender, B. (2006) Vermont Yankee gets OK to hike its power. Boston Globe, March 3, 2006, p. B3. 9. Boston Globe (2006) Power increase put on hold at plant. Boston Globe, March 7, 2006, p. B2. 10. Blanch, P. and Gundersen A. (2004) Documents submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as part of Vermont Yankee’s uprate application. Accessed January 15, 2008, from http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/plant-specific-items/vermont-yankee-issues/vermont-yankeeapplication.html. 11. Vermont Department of Public Service (2004) Documents submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as part of Vermont Yankee’s uprate application. Accessed January 15, 2008, from http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/plant-specific-items/vermont-yankee-issues/vermont-yankeeapplication.html. 12. Dillon, J. (2004) Federal safety review questioned in Vermont Yankee case. Vermont Public Radio, April 13, 2004. Accessed January 15, 2008, from http://www.vpr.net/news_ detail/70870/. 13. Union of Concerned Scientists (2005) Profile of David Lochbaum, Last revised on March 15, 2005. Accessed January 15, 2008, from http://go.ucsusa.org/news/experts.cfm?newsID=218. 14. Waugh, B. and Forrest, M.S. (2001) Soul in the Computer: The Story of a Corporate Revolutionary. Makawao, HI: Inner Ocean Publishing.

Turning Knowledge Into Action: Strategies for Change  141

15. National Whistleblower’s Center (2007) Bunnatine Greenhouse. Accessed January 22, 2008, from http://www.whistleblowers.org/html/bunny_greenhouse.html. 16. Tucker, N. (2005) A web of truth: Whistle-blower or troublemaker, Bunny Greenhouse isn’t backing down. Washington Post, October 18, 2005, p. C01. 17. Barr, S. (2007) New deal for contracting. Washington Post, November 9, 2007, p. D01. 18. Pae, P. (2005) Column one: A skeptic under pressure; A US engineer faces bankruptcy and arrest in Austria as he questions the safety of a component in the huge Airbus A380 jetliner. Los Angeles Times, September 27, 2005, p. A1. 19. Wisnioski, M. (2003) Inside “the system:” Engineers, scientists, and the boundaries of social protest in the long 1960s. History and Technology, 19(4): 313–33. doi:10.1080/0734151032000 181077 20. Noble, B.P. (1994) Wired for the revolution: Working to build a high-tech infrastructure for gay America. New York Times, June 26, 1994, p. F21. 21. Women in Science and Engineering Leadership Institute, University of Wisconsin (WISELI) (2008) Links. Accessed January 22, 2008, from http://wiseli.engr.wisc.edu/links.html. 22. Environmental Careers Organization (ECO) (2008) Diversity resources. Accessed January 22, 2008, from http://www.eco.org/site/c.dnJLKPNnFkG/b.942797/k.D9D3/Diversity_ Resources.htm. 23. Rose Companies (2008) Company web site accessed February 23, 2008, from http://www. rosecompanies.com. 24. Rose, J.F.P. and Foutz, W. (2006) A green future for affordable housing. The Costs and Benefits of High Performance Buildings Two: Lessons Learned (pp. 63–4). New York: Earth Day New York. Accessed February 23, 2008, from http://www.rosecompanies.com/news/Articles/12200153S-Lessons%20Learned%20Article-060817.pdf. 25. International Science Shop Network (ISSN) (2008) Living knowledge: The International Science Shop Network. Accessed January 22, 2008, from http://www.scienceshops.org/. 26. Weasel, L. (2001) Laboratories without walls: The “science shop” as a model for feminist community science in action. In M. Mayberry, B. Subramaniam and L. Weasel (Eds.) Feminist Science Studies: A New Generation (pp. 305–320). New York: Routledge. 27. Leydesdorff, L. and Ward, J. (2005) Science shops: A kaleidoscope of science-society collaborations in Europe. Public Understanding of Science, 14(4):353–72. doi:10.1177/0963662505056 612 28. Strand, K., Marullo, S., Cutforth, N, Stoecker, R, Donohue, P. (2003) Community-Based Research and Higher Education: Principles and Practices. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 29. Coyle, E.J., Jamieson, L.H., and Oakes, W.C. (2005)Engineering Projects in Community Service (EPICS). International Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1): 139–50.

142  engineering and social justice

30. Paton, D. (2000) Strike echoes in white-collar world. Christian Science Monitor, February 24, 2000, p. 2. 31. Paton, D. (2000b) White-collar Boeing strike sends message. Christian Science Monitor, March 20, 2000, p. 2. 32. Hillis, S. (2000) Engineers reject Boeing wage hikes: Union calls raises ‘bait and switch’ tactic that offers too little too late. The Globe and Mail, March 7, 2000, p. B13. 33. Martinez, M. (2000) Strike puts a dent in Boeing’s profits. The Toronto Star, April 20, 2000. 34. Aviation Week. (2000) Boeing deliveries regain prestrike levels. Aviation Week & Space Technology, 153(3): 55 ( July 17). 35. Associated Press (AP) (2000) Engineers end Boeing strike by accepting new contract. New York Times, March 20, 2000, p. A20. 36. Prah, P.M. (2000) Boeing engineers’ victory will spur modest union gains. Kiplinger Business Forecasts, (0331), March 27, 2000. 37. Fishman, T.C. (2000) No long-term workers’ paradise. USA Today, October 3, 2000, p. 27A. • • • •

143

chapter 6

Parting Lessons for the Continuing Struggle “It is wrong to expect a reward for your struggles. The reward is the act of struggle itself, not what you win. Even though you can’t expect to defeat the absurdity of the world, you must make that attempt. That’s morality, that’s religion. That’s art. That’s life.” Phil Ochs [1] As engineers working on social justice issues, it is helpful to consider that we are part of a long struggle that has come before and a longer struggle that will continue long after we are gone. This is hard work, where we must look at ourselves and our actions with a critical eye and, at the same time, guard against opposing forces. Outcomes are not always immediately tangible, and it is wise to focus on the process of struggle itself, and the sense of community that struggle engenders.

6.1

DARE TO BE DIFFERENT

So far, I have considered what we might mean by social justice, what a social justice perspective might contribute to engineering, what kinds of things one needs to know and be able to do as an engineer concerned about social justice, and what kinds of strategies one might use to put that knowledge into action. It is clear that to be an engineer working on social justice issues is to buck the trend regarding the kinds of work engineers do. This is a more radical act than it might seem at first because it entails a challenge to engineering identity, upending what engineers do and how we do it, altering the culture and the politics of the profession and calling engineering ethics and engineering education to account. This chapter revisits the key things engineers need to be able to do in order to work effectively on social justice issues, with an eye to encouragement for carrying on the struggle for justice.

144  engineering and social justice

The work inherently challenges several stereotypes about engineers, evident in the professional humor discussed in Chapter 2. I will revisit three of the jokes considered there, and dig a little deeper. Before, the jokes were a window on what mindsets engineers tend to hold. Now, I draw lessons for engineers going about the work of social justice and exploding the stereotypes presented in the jokes.

6.2 ONE JOKE, THREE STEREOTYPES A lawyer, a priest, and an engineer are scheduled to be executed by guillotine. The lawyer goes first, the executioner pulls the cord, but nothing happens. “Double Jeopardy! You have to let me go!” cries the lawyer. And the executioner does. The priest is next, the same thing happens. “Divine Intervention! You have to let me go!” cries the priest. And the executioner does. The engineer is next. As the executioner gets ready to pull the cord, the engineer cries, “Wait! I think I see your problem. . . .” Revisiting the Guillotine joke brings up three distinct stereotypes we need to dispel in order to be effective engineers for social justice: 1. Engineers solve problems . . . at any cost. 2. Engineers are so interested in technical details that they ignore all context: social, historical, political, personal. . . . 3. Engineers are easily co-opted.

6.2.1 Lesson 1: You Do Not Have to Solve the Problem. Maybe It Is Not Even a Problem Engineers are trained to solve problems. It is such a strong part of our identity as engineers that it can be hard not to view social justice issues as problems to be solved. In some ways, such a perspective may be helpful if it contributes to framing an issue well. But, too often, engineers forge ahead too soon, rushing to the solution when others are still exploring the nature of the problem, or question, to see if it is even a problem, or if solutions are wanted or needed. Engineers can often take too much responsibility for solving the problem or become too invested in a particular solution. When engaging in engineering and social justice work, it may be easy to fall into the mistaken belief that as the engineers, we are the problem-solving experts, the ones who know what the “right” solution is, and simply try to convince others of our point of view. Being less goal-oriented and more processoriented can help here.

PARTING LESSONS FOR THE CONTINUING STRUGGLE  145

6.2.2 Lesson 2: Explore Other Ways of Knowing. Seek to Understand the Context If engineers approach working in a social justice group with humility, knowing that we have one type of knowledge, and others possess equally valid but completely different perspectives, we can come to understand things in a different way. The challenge before us is daunting—to become facile with social theory, the history of social justice movements, the political process, tools for critical analysis, and new activist skills. We can learn a lot by listening and observing other people, as well as reading and talking with others. It takes courage to be willing to examine ourselves as individuals, our profession as engineers, and our strategies and commitments as people working for social justice. This is hard work, but it is also rewarding. One of the most important lessons we can learn from history as engineers for social justice is that there were multitudes of people working on social justice before us, and we can be confident that there will be multitudes in the future. We can draw strength from the lessons of the past, and we can be encouraged that others will carry on work we may not be able to complete in our lifetimes. To work in this context is to let go of the need to be the one who solves the problem here and now; instead, we can be part of a larger solution. The quote by folksinger Phil Ochs that opens this chapter puts it most eloquently. When we engage in social justice work, our reward is the work itself, not the ultimate outcome. It is the process that matters because the process builds relationships and creates the community that sustains us, thus the work can continue into the future.

6.2.3 Lesson 3: Resist Being Co-Opted In Chapter 2, I discussed this joke in terms of unthinking loyalty to the state; now I draw a lesson that is more subtle. Looking at this joke with a view to both engineering and social justice, there is a particular power dynamic operating here, one in which the engineer is co-opted to serve the will of the state. It is the nature of power to co-opt resistance into itself, to appropriate or misappropriate a movement for its own political ends, to neutralize opposition by making it seem as though concerns are addressed when, in fact, actions taken may be superficial at best. Language is very easily co-opted, because someone else need only take the words and attach slightly different meanings to them in order to alter critical outcomes. A phrase like “social justice” is easily altered in this way, which is why I began this book with an entire chapter discussing what might be meant by social justice—and who gets to decide. In fact, there are times when co-optation may be desired because it signals a mainstreaming or institutionalization of an idea that was once marginalized. While a social justice group knows there will be some compromises, the advantages of being mainstreamed may outweigh the costs. For

146  engineering and social justice

example, as an undergraduate I was involved in a campus queer rights and visibility group. What had started as a small and often secretive organization had become increasingly visible and sought funding to hire a staff person to support students; help organize social, cultural, and academic events; and work with the administration on reforming its own policies and curricula to be more just and inclusive. Once the position was fully funded by the Dean of Students, the staff member would face a conflict of interest between supporting student activism, on the one hand, and representing the Dean of Students, on the other, with some responsibility for reining in student actions that might violate college rules. Students who once carried a great deal of responsibility for program planning or peer education took smaller roles. One can argue whether shouldering all responsibility is good experience or too much to ask of students. But a student organization office, which had been referred to as “the closet” due to its miniscule size in a marginal location, became larger and ultimately centrally located in the campus center. On balance, the changes represented a growing acceptance of queer people and ideas on campus, but certain kinds of student radicalism were redirected through other student groups and unofficial channels. There are other times when co-optation is clearly to be resisted. Writer and engineer Derrick Jensen [2] interviews John Stauber, editor of the watchdog publication PR Watch and author of Toxic Sludge Is Good for You: Lies, Damn Lies, and the Public Relations Industry, about the use of public relations (PR) firms to assist corporations in co-opting activists. Stauber related a story about Ron Duchin, a PR executive, explaining how to accomplish this co-optation: isolate and marginalize those in the group who seek fundamental structural change (radicals) by characterizing them as dangerous extremists, then convince realists in the group to go along with a corporate plan for incremental change that looks win–win to outsiders but in fact benefits industry. As an example of co-optation, he cites the U.S. environmental movement. Because so many people are lulled into doing no more than write checks (it is so much easier than the more difficult work of getting involved, organizing people, etc.), several grassroots environmental groups grew into huge direct-mail operations, where the success of the organization itself became the goal. Specifically, he cites the campaign of grassroots groups against McDonald’s, originally about a number of issues (deforestation, inhumane animal farming, and waste production). Environmental Defense stepped in and worked out a deal in which McDonald’s got rid of Styrofoam containers; McDonald’s looked green, Environmental Defense took credit (Figure 6.1), and the other groups were neutralized, their concerns left unaddressed. Meanwhile, the corporate partnerships that have developed with the larger environmental groups have meant that their boards are filled with corporate executives and their coffers with corporate donations. Some would say this is a positive development signifying social change and the greening of mainstream culture; others would say this is corporate co-optation of activist groups toward a massive green-washing effort that has simultaneously rendered the environmental movement ineffective with regard to effecting legislative change.

PARTING LESSONS FOR THE CONTINUING STRUGGLE  147

FIGURE 6.1.: Green or green washing? McDonalds partnered with Environmental Defense to ditch Styrofoam containers for recycled cardboard. Accessed March 2, 2008, from http://graphics8.nytimes. com/images/2007/05/12/business/12packaging-600-no.jpg.

6.3

VALUING RELATIONSHIPS An engineer and a sociologist were tasked with finding the height of a church steeple. The engineer measured the angle to the top of the steeple and calculated the height using trigonometry. Then, to check the estimate, the engineer climbed to the top of the steeple, lowered a string until it touched the ground, climbed back down and measured the length of the string. The engineer compared the measurement to the estimate, calculated the standard error, and drafted a report documenting the methods and results. The sociologist bought the sexton a beer in the local pub and he told her how high the church steeple was.

Wariness of co-optation should not prevent us from building coalitions. This is far more easily said than done. History is littered with examples where coalitions were perhaps sought by some but also resisted by many, and in hindsight people speculate about how much more could have happened if coalitions were stronger. One such example is the role of labor in the Civil Rights movement. On the one hand, labor historian Alan Draper [3] documents the furious resistance to civil rights among many rank-and-file union members in the south, who saw the positions of union leaders at the national level as being out of touch with Southern culture. Some of these were active participants in the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and other groups who used violence against civil rights activists. In some instances, this desperate clinging to white privilege even undermined union members’ own goals; Blacks were kept out of some unions despite the fact that a competing nonunion labor market would undercut unionized white workers’ economic interests. On the other hand, labor historian and ethnic studies scholar Michael Honey [4–6] focuses on a different aspect of the history of civil rights and union organizing. His work, centered on Memphis Tennessee, is consistent with Draper's in documenting ways that racism created divisions that limited the success of the labor movement. But it also documents how Black members supported and

148  engineering and social justice

strengthened unions, how reaching across racial divisions, when it did occur, strengthened the labor movement, and how Black participation in unions helped Black workers fight racial discrimination. His most recent book on Martin Luther King ’s last days [6] reminds us that Dr. King was in Memphis supporting Black sanitation workers striking for union recognition, equal pay, and safer working conditions. King clearly understood that racial justice and economic justice went hand in hand. He also publicly opposed the Vietnam War because he knew war spending undercut the war on poverty, and he knew the human toll the war took on the Black community. More recently, organized labor supported extending marriage rights to same-sex couples in Massachusetts by lobbying legislators [7]. While the list of supporting unions was long [it included the Massachusetts Teachers Association, the National Association of Government Employees, the Massachusetts Nurses Association, and locals of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the United Auto Workers (UAW), and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW)], other groups, including the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), did not come out in support in order not to alienate Catholic members. One can focus on the positive or on the negative and characterize unions as pro-civil rights or anticivil rights, but the lesson of history is the same: that coalition building is essential for social justice causes to move forward. If we believe the stereotype, engineers are not good at talking to one another. The reasons for this are many, embedded in the history and culture of engineering, the content and pedagogy of engineering education, and the personalities of some of us. Coalition building requires not only communication skills but also skills in critical thinking and analysis to identify allies and to distinguish coalition building from co-optation. Here is an instance where engineers have not even done as much as throw some technology at the problem—the Internet has a lot to offer in terms of blogs, wikis, discussion forums, and social networking sites. Why have so many engineers not yet harnessed these tools effectively toward social justice ends? If we can take this first easier step, maybe then we can also prove the stereotype wrong and make the interpersonal connections that activism is all about.

6.4 HAVING FUN You might be an engineer if . . . in college you thought Spring Break was metal fatigue failure. Engineers and social justice activists share a common stereotype: that neither group knows how to have fun. Activists are often characterized as having no sense of humor; engineers are characterized as being too busy or technically focused to enjoy life. In her memoir, Living my Life,

PARTING LESSONS FOR THE CONTINUING STRUGGLE  149

Emma Goldman [8] relates a story in which a boy pulls her aside at a dance where she is living it up, telling her that it is inappropriate for a member of the movement to dance so enthusiastically and that it would hurt the cause to be perceived as not serious. She took the boy to task, explaining that the joy and freedom of dancing should honor the ideals of anarchism, and she did not want to be part of a cause that did not recognize this. She is commonly quoted as having said in that moment, “If I can’t dance, it’s not my revolution.”

6.5

THE WORK AHEAD

I leave it to others to develop the agenda for engineering and social justice; indeed, the profiles in the last chapter suggest that this is already taking place. There are countless directions this work can take. As noted in the first chapter, our sense of engineering and social justice will necessarily be shaped by our sense of what is unjust in and about engineering. Our work will take shape and change shape over time. This book has hopefully provided some foundational concepts upon which we can build into the future. If we maintain Emma Goldman’s spirit of fun and keep our sense of humor even when the going gets tough, who would not want to join us? When it comes to engineering and social justice, there is surely much work to be done, and many good times ahead. The opportunities are endless. Come on along!

References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Ochs, P. (1978) The Complete Phil Ochs: Chords of Fame. Hollywood, CA: Almo Publications. Jensen, D. (1999) The war on truth: The secret battle for the American mind—An interview with John Stauber, The Sun Magazine, Chapel Hill, NC, Issue 279, March 1999. Draper, A. (1994) Conflict of Interests: Organized Labor and the Civil Rights Movement in the South. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Honey, M. (1993) Southern Labor and Black Civil Rights: Organizing Memphis Workers. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Honey, M. (1999) Black Workers Remember: An Oral History of Segregation, Unionism, and the Freedom Struggle. Berkeley: University of California Press. Honey, M. (2007) Going Down Jericho Road: The Memphis Strike, Martin Luther King’s Last Campaign. New York: W.W. Norton. Lewis, D.E. (2004) Partnership forged in labor’s trenches: In unions, gay activists find a partner in battle. Boston Globe, February 28, 2004. Goldman, E. (1931) Living my Life. New York: A.A. Knopf. • • • •

151

Author Biography Donna Riley is Associate Professor of Engineering and a founding faculty member in the Picker Engineering Program at Smith College. She received her bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering from Princeton University and her doctorate in engineering and public policy from Carnegie Mellon University. At Smith, she conducts research in the areas of risk analysis and engineering education.