That land is a community is the basic concept of
ecology, but that land is to be loved and respected is an extension of ethics...
We abuse the land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When
we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with
love and respect. - Aldo Leopold
I speak to you as a alumni of Connecticut College
and as one who has invested a great deal of myself into sustaining Connecticut
College's model for environmental living. I have seen my own mindfulness
develop as I have worked alongside the Earth House members into an appreciation
of the site as more of a home than a house, and more of a home-grounds than
a residence. I consider myself part of a tradition which will not disassociate
the land from the people who abide on it. It is this manner of thinking
which has raised concern as to the fate of Earth House as the college prepares
to embark upon a sweeping change in its physical design.
The current members share with the Earth House
residents of past years the notions of environmentalism and sustainability.
Understanding that a move away from environmental activism had taken place,
the focus of late has been to conduct a lifestyle representative of an environmental
model, somewhere in between political activism (which would have reduced
both thought and action to mere words) and an essentially apolitical self-indulgence.
At present we find ourselves maintaining an almost agrarian environment
and I fear our scope may be a provincial one. Most of the activity this
year has been physical and constructive. The culmination of this semester's
activities has been the creation of an American Indian style wigwam , a
project that has both practical and spiritual significance to us. We have
created and sustained lasting impressions upon the Earth House landscape,
however, how far from the mean of campus opinion do we find ourselves? 
Earth House residents have debated our role
within the college's master plan, concluding that the opportunity has arisen
to assess ways in which Earth House can develop to best reflect its mission.
Should we focus on improving the existing house in order to make it more
environmentally sound, or should we be thinking about starting from the
"ground up" with the fabrication of an up-to-date facility? Often
this is debated on a higher level of generality amongst ourselves as a difference
between a more "traditional" living (and in that sense we mean
Earth House to be a model of environmental living for those of a moderate
income), and a more technological approach to the demands of environmentalism
today.
Ideological debates aside, it seems that our commitment to the concept of sustainable living forces our hand when it comes to our future development. Simply put, we are concerned that in the near future technological over-sophistication may well lead to a breakdown in the infrastructure of our day to day lives. On the other hand, technologies such as solar heating or non-combustion engines would be a step towards sustainability. It becomes then, an issue of great concern how the ideals of environmentalism and sustainablity are to be implemented in the future, even more so considering the changes which are planned for this college. The concern is now a present and immediate one for those of us dedicated to the reality of Connecticut College as an environmental model. In particular, each of the three proposals for design set forth by the master planning committee call for the creation of a loop around the perimeter of the campus. The plan calls for the demolition of Winthrop, Winthrop annex, and the north cottages. Our concern is that such construction cannot but adversely affect the Earth House grounds situated directly in the path of the proposed loop. We therefore request of the land planning committee an assessment of the status of the present Earth House residence within the master plan.
Keeping within the framework of the existing
Earth House there are still some basic implementations lacking such as exterior
electrical outlets and water faucets. Further constitutive improvements
include energy efficient windows and compliance with the fire code, as well
as working toward an ecologically responsible use of land. These improvements
necessitate a commitment of resources and time from both the College and
the members of the house. Perhaps a moderate allocation of funds for Earth
House is needed for future projects. Perhaps we should take a close look
at the Earth House charter, including writing a provision which takes home-grounds
maintenance as a requirement of the members to come.
But, the master planning which is currently
at work at the college marks a decisive moment in determining the future
of Earth House. At worst, we could do nothing. In which case the need for
a commitment towards an environmental model is lost, as will be the model
itself. However, my hope is that the college realizes the importance of
a strong model of environmental living within its master plan. Next semester
is going to be a decisive time for the future of Earth House, one in which
a formative commitment from the residents will need to be strengthened and
affirmed. It is time now, before future development begins, to ask how committed
we really are to the ideals we as a college espouse, and to ensure a substantial
presence of environmental living on this campus and not merely an ideology
of environmentalism.
What is our obligation to the land we live
on? Are we free from all obligation to maintain that which sustains us?
It is a question of the moment for land planners and residents to assess
the relationship of Earth House residents to the house and to the home-grounds.
Are we working under an idea of private property in thinking that Earth
House is a notion which can be implemented in the future, or, do we fully
recognize the existing reality which suffers with every moment of neglect
and prospers with every exertion towards the concept of an ethical relationship
to the land?
, Jesse Locantore
Arboretum Intern