On Nov. 8, all earth systems majors received an email from the faculty director of the earth systems program asking for input on a proposed name change. The survey listed rankable options but didn’t include the current major name, inciting community backlash; we personally spoke to dozens of majors who were unhappy and even angry with the change, and did not hear student voices excited about a name change. 

We are the 2023-24 earth systems student advisors and we are against the proposed name change of earth systems to “sustainability science and systems.” The Doerr School has failed to incorporate student feedback, and is making this proposal in spite of our continued protests. The larger Stanford community, and the Faculty Senate Committee on Review of Undergraduate Majors (C-RUM), who will vote on this proposal soon, should hear our perspective and concerns as this decision is made.

In response to student concern, the Doerr School and Earth Systems Leadership organized a town hall and focus group to solicit further feedback from students, both of which occurred during Week 10.  We subsequently sent a letter to Doerr School Dean Arun Majumdar synthesizing the perspectives of the Earth System’s cohort and created a petition against the change which was ultimately signed by 115 students and alumni. However, on Jan. 16, the Doerr School announced that the name “Sustainability Science and Systems” would be sent to C-RUM for approval. This name had not appeared in the original survey, town hall or feedback group, and thus has received no backing from students. Furthermore, the proposed name directly rejects the most resounding feedback expressed repeatedly by the student body: to preserve the word “earth” in the name and to avoid emphasizing the word “sustainability.” To ignore these two critical requests is to ignore the very people at the core of this major. 

In defense of ‘earth systems‘

The earth systems program’s success and popularity is due in part to its foundation as an “interdisciplinary environmental science” degree that uses a systems thinking approach to address planetary issues. The major name, earth systems, reflects this in a decades-old program with a tight-knit community encouraging students to “investigate complex environmental problems.”  If the Doerr School is truly concerned with expanding this legacy, earth systems is the only acceptable name. It is essential that the current name of the major encapsulates the interdisciplinary nature, scientific foundations, and systems-thinking central to the earth systems program. Additionally, “earth” is the foundation of the current name, and it is what unites us within the major. We are all in this major because we were drawn to a degree that emphasizes protecting, learning from, and celebrating the Earth. Removing “earth”  from the name reshapes what direction the degree will take, the faculty that will be hired, and the classes that will be taught. 

The problem with ‘sustainability sciences and systems‘

The proposed name centers the term sustainability. While learning about sustainability is a part of the earth systems curriculum, its core components are “science, economics, and policy,” which exist beyond the scope of sustainability. 

As with most corporate lingo, “sustainability” lacks a universal definition. The Doerr School of Sustainability has yet to offer a clear definition themselves. Even sustainability department coursework reflects this vagueness: a debate about the definition is an introductory element of SUST 210: “Pursuing Sustainability: Managing Complex Systems.” This ambiguity is dangerous, especially in situations where our degree precedes us. Potential employers and curious future students will be left to interpret the degree themselves, with the buzzword of “sustainability” changing in connotation every day. Furthermore, the newly announced Environmental Social Sciences Department is developing a new undergraduate degree program that could satisfy the Doerr School’s interest in sustainability sciences, once again rendering a name change unnecessary. 

Stanford does not have a conventional environmental science degree. Stanford’s bachelor of science in earth systems is the closest equivalent. Peer institutions offer comparable degrees: environmental sciences (Berkeley), environmental science and public policy (Harvard), and environmental science (Columbia). Earth systems is a clear analogue to these degrees. Sustainability science and systems is not, which could turn away a large pool of current and future undergraduates looking for such an education. The Doerr School claims that the future name is “easily understandable and recognizable to prospective students and high school families.” They’ve offered nothing to support this claim, which runs counter to the experiences of many current students. The proposed move towards “sustainability” represents a worrying trend away from the natural sciences in exchange for vague corporate lingo. 

The town hall and focus group feedback strongly opposed the use of “sustainability” in the major’s name due to its narrowed scope and worrying ambiguity, yet the SDSS Faculty Governance group explicitly ignored this feedback, adding the terms “science” and “systems” in an apparent attempt at compromise. However, the injection of “sustainability” and complete removal of “earth” from the name shows the Doerr School’s failure to genuinely consider student perspectives.

A lack of transparency 

After the feedback process, the Doerr School continues to push the proposed name change. One should question what motivates this charge, especially given the Doerr School’s acceptance of fossil fuel funding. Stanford flaunts its students as leaders, and yet this change comes with minimal student involvement and no true student agency. This proposed change does not come from the earth systems community, but rather from departmental administrative superiors who have failed to attend our feedback initiatives or listen to the clear and direct support of the current name. The Doerr School touts a “five-year timeline of community engagement” in this decision, yet student involvement made up just a few weeks of that process.

The next steps

The final opportunity to prevent this change from taking place is the C-RUM approval process, which is ongoing this quarter. Faculty and students on C-RUM should take these student concerns into account, and make a decision that supports student interest and agency, rather than one motivated by opaque processes and empty language. Earth systems’ 32-year legacy as a community of students and faculty who truly care about the Earth should not be rhetorically erased.

Laney Conger, Nazli Dakad, Calvin Probst, Julia Donlon, Terachet (Drive) Rojrachsombat, and Sky Chen are the 2023-24 earth systems student advisors.