The “Centering Justice” Symposium: A Call to Climate and Environmental Justice Centers Within Higher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In January 2024, the Tishman Environment and Design Center (Tishman Center or TEDC) at The New School hosted the Centering Justice Symposium to explore how the rapid uptake of environmental and climate justice missions at university centers, together with increased federal and philanthropic funding opportunities, is shaping the relationship between higher education and the environmental justice (EJ) movement. The symposium addressed grounding principles, opportunities, and challenges that can accompany this emergent interest and explored ways to foster equitable partnerships with EJ communities. This article offers a summary of the event and reflects on some of the key aspects and outcomes of the symposium, including (1) investing in inclusive planning practices and agenda setting grounded in EJ principles, (2) relationship-building as a cornerstone of EJ-focused missions, (3) committing to changing the rules of higher education to center EJ movement needs, (4) institutionalizing and modeling practices that center justice, (5) creating a manifesto to disseminate and act on shared commitments, and (6) building a community of practice for co-learning and accountability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.028 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.035 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".