Conference Dates: June 27-29, 2012
Submission Deadline: March 15, 2012

For submissions and additional Information:
http://www.3helix.rpi.edu/?p=2102

This conference seeks new approaches to interweaving social justice and science/technology. Some that are already known include DIY and “maker” communities, Open Source Science, “Technologies for Non-violent Social Change,” and other new hybrid forms of collaboration that put technoscience in the hands of non-experts, local communities, indigenous groups and the less powerful. Typical approaches to “ethics in science” treat ethics as a police officer that operates at the borders, slapping science on the wrist when it over-steps. How can we treat ethics instead as a pro-active force, integrated from the start? Social scientists studying scientific controversy may know very little about the particulars of the science, and the scientist embroiled within the controversy may not know very much about the dynamics of communities or the relations of power between experts and the public. This conference will highlight ways to provoke engineers, social scientists, and the educators of future thinkers into considering new and innovative methods of merging social and technical dimensions of science and engineering research, teaching and practice. It will contribute to the possibilities for a “two way bridge” across the lay/expert divide; one in which social justice is informed by technoscience and not just technoscience informed by social justice. To this end, we are looking for papers and proposed panels that can discuss transformative possibilities for every level of making science, scientists, technology, engineers, and knowledge. Existing categories in which pertinent (and important) discussions are taking place are, but is not limited to, K-12 STEM education, advanced pedagogy in the natural/physical/life sciences, ethics, public engagement/understanding of science, theoretical and social studies on information and communication technology, political sociology of science, Science and Technology Studies, appropriating technology, feminist studies, emerging nanotechnology, postcolonial studies, engineering education, urban studies, and experimental art.

What:
We are accepting 250-word abstracts for presentations made by individuals, to be placed into themed panels. We are also looking for hands-on workshop format presentations or activities to be done in groups by people with a variety of technical and social expertise. Workshop sessions can be submitted by individuals or groups. Limited travel reimbursement may be available.

Privilegewalk: after many itineration’s it make visible some privileges normally aren’tand allow reflecting and analyzing their nature with focus on social justice.Sometimes it can make the participant uncomfortable; but like Goodman said“it’s normal to feel uncomfortable during a taller: people participating neverhave to stop to challenge themselves and the others.

Privilegewalk is a model and consider only a few variable depending on the questionsasked; after our experiment we could say that a white man living home is safer thanthe other and has lots of privileges more. So reading only our result we cansay white man living home is the best situation.

Thecontext where we live is really important and can make lots of difference onour life: who lives abroad can access privileges with a bigger effort. Thisexercise can show some results really different from the expectations: this gapcan cause different feelings like sadness or even happiness and satisfaction.It depends on the effort each one put in his life to achieve what he actuallyhas.

Thebiggest challenge is to change the society to avoid the new generations stay onthe back. It’s hard also because the same aspect can be seen like a privilegeor not depending on the single person. We don’t have to mix privilege and value meaning: they are reallydifferent and the existence of one doesn’t mean anything about the existence ofthe other .

CiudadBolivar is a place where social justice and injustice live together. There aresome organizations that try to guarantee the “supposed” human rights, notalways with good results.

An exit is a circus for children, the first and onlystable children circus school. It is organized with really detailed processesin order to offer to the children a really social justice. SOCIAL JUSTICE ISTHE EQUAL ACCESS TO POORTUNITIES AND HUMAN RIGHTS. Opportunities have adifferent meaning depending on the context and the privileges where someone wasborn and grow up.

They make circus because it’s a way to make the childrencloser to the arts and make them closer allow them to change their prospectiveand point of view. Then art is a tools to reconstruct children live: this isthe first step to social justice.

It is also a way to become closer to the communitiesand let them to listen their voice: this is the first step to make people awareof their skills that in other case they maybe would not know.

They don’t make only artistic progress but alsointellectual developing. Those processes allow people to reach a betterlifestyle and a better prospective. To show children they have different andbetter prospective of life is a another form of social justice.

They don’t want to remove weapons from the children,they just want to change it: they want to substitute a gun or a knife with acircus tool or artistic

QUESTIONS

What is it “equal access to opportunities” in thecontext you work?

In a low income context often the access level toopportunities is really different: someone has no access. The aim is to makethe people aware of their context so they can start to reach some kind ofopportunities. The problem is that after a big and explicit attack against youthin the ’80 (where lots of young people were killed and raped) young peopledon’t trust anyone. There is a big wall between adult and young people. So theystar to operate in the lightest way possible: they create ”open” spaces whereyoung people can express themselves freely in the way they prefer using art;this solution can be considered like the first attempt to reach social justice.

Which is the relationship between weapons, gang, art?

The best way to approach an armored young is to try tomake him conscious of his opportunities and that there are better alternatives.They don’t want to destroy group of people (gang): they want to spread theirprinciples of awareness and social justice. They don’t want to keep some onefar away from his origin, they want everyone to go back and speak about socialjustice with other people, even with the gangs. Till now 400 guys have alreadyabandoned gangs. After that often guys, when they learn their ownpossibilities, go to work to industries. Art is the tool used to permitchildren to go away from gangs and start a better life.

Design of an uptake system for raining water.

The purpose of the project is to try to changelifestyle with a focus on social aspect starting from single families.

The process starts from family’s selection and contextand stakeholders analysis using engineering tools. Then they start to analyze family’sneeds and they have found water supply can be a first problem has to be solved.

After they reach a trusted position, families werealways disposable, collaborative and kind.

The tools and process designed are viable, cheap andmodular.

An engineering product is meaningful only if it improveshuman life.

Uniminutodoesn’t want to create engineers aim to work in international companies butwant engineers that improve Colombia and social justice.

They want to promote individual and collective actionsto promote the sensibility in politics and social movements. All this processesare supported by university jobs.

Starting creating the concept of citizenship they wantto improve education; they want their students to understand local reality andonly later the global aspect. And to be a good citizen they have to learn theright importance of feeling: engineering has to pass by feeling to reallyimprove actual situation.

All the students have those basic knowledge,engineering and others careers. The course is based on 2 different main topics:

a) Practica en responsabilidad social (Social ResponsibilityPractice)

b) Desarollo social contemporaneo (using andpracticing knowledge from the first class)

Normally students are not so happy about the classchosen when they start, but after few weeks they start to love it. Actuallythere are 17 projects with more than 1000 students each semester.

We have to underline the concept of citizenship has adifferent meaning based on the context and the country we consider.

Efficiency studies on this university class areplanned but till now they don’t know if there are some differences betweentypical and this new engineering approach.

Engineering for whom?  A difficult challenge

Engineering is not a vacuum. There are a lot ofengineering definitions and all in different context (multidisciplinary).Problems don’t have any edge or limit to disciplines or any kind of rules.Engineering to solve problems has to have the same “shape”.

NICOLAS

Nicola’spresentation is about engineering and its sustainability in the USA. In the 80′a different engineering company was born: it is called “American engineeringsocial responsibility” and it has a different point of view from the typicalone and with his new approach try to solve the tipical engineering questions.They start to ask themselves why “social justice” is not a common word in theengineer background and why no one try to spread this concept in the context.

It’shard to speak about this concept because it starts from a different point:normal entrepreneur decide to operate in a context despite of it is difficult;social entrepreneur decide to operate in a context because of it is difficult.

Theychanged not only the operational approach but also the relationship betweentechnology and context: it has to be appropriate and it has to suit thenecessities and the culture of the context.

Whytypically engineering is so far from social justice concept? Maybe we have tochange the engineer concept itself and the way we think to do engineering. A newstarting point.

Theanswers depend on the considered framework and context:

a) Focuson technological challenges: the effort spent on the challenges doesn’t dependon the topic chosen but on the magnitude of the challenge.

b) Socialmobility

c) Politicalconservationism: sometimes it can be a problem for engineer decision or it candisappoint the engineer 

Itcould be interesting and useful to change the social engineer external image:we should try to make it more attractive so to attract more human resources andfinally to be able to improve the approach and the effectiveness ontechnological challenges.

GIULIA

Thecontext: bad water quality and millennium goal

28.7% Colombian people lives in thecountryside

44,7% hasn’t access to water

56,3%  is not drinkable water

ISFmission: to improve live quality in Colombia working and collaborating with thecommunities (par methodology).

It’simportant to consider par methodology not only like a methodology but also likea state of mind and an attitude. It’s important to consider context timing andhabits and then adapt engineer method.

ISFwant their project to be replicable so to improve the penetration of differentcontext and communities.

Specificobjectives are different proposal for each community

It’s important toconsider the nature of the interment, the geography, choose local partners,suited selection of the society, etc.

isf milano havefound the right match in a community called Restrepo. Till now they made awater analysis and stakeholders analysis (there are 3 different possible scenarios)

a)To use energy to provide pubblic illumination to guarantee safety

b)To sell energy to local enterprise o establish a local enterprise (the onechosen)

c)To improve water quality

Engineersshould promote integration with a systemic approach based not only on thetechnology but considering also a wider point of view. The technology is consideredonly like a support for the methodology.

Socialjustice engineering in Colombia should also to change colonial mentality:people shouldn’t anymore depend on others by developing more awareness incommunities.

We should facilitatecommunities to learn tools and their own talent and skills.

There are 3different levels of developing awareness like different level of knowledge

a) Smallbusiness production

b) Politicalactions

DEBATE

First exposition

It’sreally hard to conciliate innovation on engineering and conservatism. To forgetthe political context habilitates the engineer to operate neutrally and openthe direction to social justice.

We should change engineeringeducation starting from engineering school: engineers aren’t conservative butthe basic knowledge are. The proof is that despite of the knowledge some engineermanages to exit the typical stereotype.

The purpose is to manage andto be aware of technology to reach changing not only a engineering level butalso to political one.

A big step is the expandsocial engineering network: some engineer starts to feel marginal in theclassical context because they start to think social. This group of engineerstarts to become pretty big. The problem is if it’s better an internal or anexternal growth of this group.

Second exposition

The project includea timeline: is it suitable with the community?

Toprovide energy is really social justice? Who would be the owner?

Thefeedback from the community is different based on the stakeholder interviewed.The actors are culturally, economically and they have different objectives.

The idea is tointerview the biggest number of stakeholder

CAMILO

Theorganization is created from the community itself with the purpose of solvecommunity problems.

Moretypical problems:

a)Scholarship

b) Alcoholism

c) Domesticviolence

The organization wasborn in the 2000. the first project was the creation of a kinder garden wherecommunity members used to work in all the mansions.

Thenthey start to find some helps for kids after they finish their kinder garden.This project attracted different professionals that wanted to help andcontribute sharing their knowledge with the members. After professionalsstarted to arrive also some entrepreneur that helped to improve work qualitylevel.

Thosepeople didn’t arrive with predefined knowledge but they first looked at thecontext and then measure the knowledge really needed.  A real partnership is the correct mix betweentechnical and practical knowledge. When this synergy is reached it is the rightcontext to reach real good results for the communities. Then the professionalput himself inside the communities without distance. A good professional shouldeliminate the gap between different classes: this is the only way to make moreconscious people on their own value.

Nothing about us without us.(suggested book)

ISF AUSTRALIA

Technologyto help populations

Thereare 2 different mainstreams:

a) Workingwith community

b)Learning and change

There is a school program: designprojects for the communities.

lessons are interactive andproactive trying to find propositivity from the students in differentpoint of view. The results are always interesting.

EWBchallenge: start with the design, introducing the students to sustainabledesign. To each team is given a real context (a community). Last year 8000people participate from 20 different universities. Solutions aren’t engineeringsolutions but professional solution. All the projects are based on criticalthinking.

EWB research program: ithas a deeper relation with the communities. The final aim is to create localengineering. The focus is the impact on the communities.

Thepurpose of the class is to find low cost technological solutions. In the first5 semester they considered 50 different topics about Colombia. Some studentsovercome scholar objectives creating real prototype.

Methodology:to show example of low cost solutions, discussing of lectures, interactive debates.The class can be chosen from all the different careers even if almost onlyengineers chose it. The methodology is in continuous evolution.

Designchallenges: students write the problem formulation and describe the context,the requirements and the design. They identify also the beneficiary communityand its relationship with the project.

Oftenengineers are considered like resources; often resources aren’t distributed ina equal measure. So we can say engineers aren’t distributed in an equalmeasure. The difference from other professional figure is that engineers don’toperate in a dedicated ambient (like a doctor in the hospital). So when acommunity needs an engineer, it’s hard for them to contact him.

Itcould be interesting to offer an alternative to a normal stage: a student canpractice his knowledge living in a community. This approach allows the studentto understand properly the community problems and also help the community tosee the engineer closer, like a member of the community.

AFTERNOONSESSION

Theproject is aimed to help abandoned girls trough agriculture. The organizationis called OPNI (Guasca) and it offer physical and psychological safety to girlsoffering basic knowledge and values.

Livingon the street is really close to starting to become drug addicted. When theproject started, the center wasn’t in food safe condition: indeed often girlswere fed with expired food. Even thou they start a food, music, craftsmaneducations. First agriculture wasn’t considerate.

Thenthey start to cultivate something in the center itself starting an agroecologic movement. With agricultural skill they started also to develop alsoall the values linked to this lifestyle (social responsibility, ownership tothe community, importance of the environment, altitude, food safety, etc). Theycan consider this work like a punishment.

Somegirls couldn’t get used easily of this lifestyle because of the pressure fromthe group, different profiles and the idea of countryside villagers. But in theother hand some others started to consider the place like an open space wherethey can express themselves.

FINE

Theprogram wants to offer professional figures at society service, with a reallyspecific mission. The program is called “prosofi” and wants to promote and makemore dynamic communities developing. They don’t want to operate instead of thecommunities but they want to offer tools.

The5 objectives are:

1 Scholarinvestigations and service.

2social responsibilities

3 Interdisciplinaryworks

4 Selfmanagement and participatory social management 

5Innovationand risk management

Thereis a project called “vivienda digna” in Usme. Usme isn’t a rural area but is anurban neighborhood. The idea is to offer knowledge about loyalty, seismicvulnerability and sane housing.

Theproject starts from a pilot with 17 houses with the purpose of building more lately.Everything has to be legal. After only one year the community already startedto own the process.

Thebiggest problem is the short term point of view in the communities

RETOOLINGENGINEERING BOOK

Proposalsto spread ESJP concepts with innovative tools.

1) how can we bring sj fromcritical prospective into mainstream ing(not development comunity pjt)

-      socialjustice is a really hard concept to define so it’s even harder to share and toteach. Issue of pedagogy: the relationship between university and students isreally important to start to spread this concept. Some classes on history ofengineering should teach social engineering too. They should explain socialinjustice first (actual paradigm) and promote social justice. It can be hardbecause some engineers aren’t able to understant social justice value so theycan consider the class under average level.

2) How can ESJP develop anexpansion movement or growth?

The real question is not howto growth but how to keep the dynamic and the focus. Importance of networks.Changing new media tools to social media to reach a wider group of people,younger.

On the 6th of July of 2011, in Bogota (Colombia), the seventh annual international conference of Engineering, Social Justice and Peace took place at "Minuto de Dios" university. A group of engineers and social workers from all over the world shared knowledge and experiences about working with vulnerable communities.

The day started with an activity named “Getting to know each other “led by professor Juan Lucena. In order to get a better idea of what kind of people was attending to the conference, participants were organized in couples of different countries and were encouraged to respond the following questions:

How and why did they get to the seventh international conference ESJP?

What do you know about engineering and social justice?

What do you expect to get or achieve in this conference?

The result of this little chat was fantastic. All attendees had the opportunity to know more of each one, not only of their professional life but the interests and hobbies that they have as humans. This gave to the group a good start based on confidence and friendship.

At the second section of the morning professor Caroline Baillie organized another activity named "Knowledge and Social Justice". The main idea was to determine what forms of knowledge or skills are required in an engineer to participate or have a role in social justice. To do so, three presentations were given:  “Aprender a ser ingenieros" (Learning how to be engineers) by social worker Luisa Arias, "Universidad como agente facilitador" (University as a facilitator agent), by professors Calderon, Bermeo and Orozco, and "Bringing Social Justice into the heart of engineering" by professor Nieusma. All these expositions aimed to show the importance of Interdisciplinarity when developing social projects. There was a particular emphasis on social work due to two aspects. On one hand, to the presence of "FUNDAMIL", a cooperative which helps vulnerable communities in Bogota teaching recycling process, urban farming and building dining halls for little kids. On the other hand, because it is one of the main careers at Universidad Minuto de Dios and is well recognized all over Colombia. 

After having eaten "ajiaco" as lunch, the typical dish of Bogota, all the group came back to the classroom in order to start the afternoon session. The main topic was Social Entrepreneurship which was explained in four presentations: “Innovación y Desarrollo en el Tolima” (Innovation and Development in Tolima) by professor Enciso, “Social Enterprises” by Professor Bengo, “Ingenieros ONGeros” by professor Richard Arias and “Social Entrepreneurship” by engineers Lizarazo, Gonzalez and Villano. Completed this activity, professor Donna Riley led a discussion among the expositors, in which emerged a rewarding debate full of interesting questions such as:

Which are the real features of a Social Enterprise?

What is the meaning of Social Responsibility? Does it have to do with Social Enterprise?

Which is the relationship between Social Justice, Social Enterprise and Social Entrepreneurship?

Why Social Entrepreneurship is important nowdays?

These sorts of questions were discussed according to all the different perspectives of each participant, giving them the opportunity to reinforce their knowledge about Social Entrepreneurship. However, not all the debate was focused on sharing knowledge, the generation of new questions involving topics like social justice, social value, measuring social work and so on,   was the ending of this section.

At the second part of the afternoon two activities were developed. The first one was a brief intervention made by the president of "Corporación Minuto de Dios" father Diego Jaramillo. He passed through all its history, telling to the audience that all began with a radio program called " El minuto de Dios"(God´s minute) in 1950. It had a huge impact on  listeners, so that many of them started to donate money, services and goods for helping the cause of the program. This situation became bigger and bigger, until the point that the program jumped onto TV and has been transmitted every night without interruptions since its launching (Over 60 years). Then, father Diego claimed that nowdays  "Corporación Minuto de Dios" is considered  as a social corporation that helps  vulnerable communities in Colombia, thanks for counting with kinder gardens, primary and high schools, one university – the one which facilitated all the infrastructure for the group -, libraries and other sort of  organizations that  serve the people in need (Mostly in Bogota).

Even though this presentation was more for inviting father Diego to show him the participant´s gratitude, it turned out to be a great experience hearing such an example of social justice and peace.

The last part of the afternoon was led by professors Jon Leydens and Richard Arias. The main objective was to answer three questions in order to point out the relevant conclusions of the day. Three subgroups were organized and to each one of them was given one of the following questions:

1 With the grain (Positive aspects).

2 Against the grain (Negative aspects).

3 Complexities.

As a common focus, all groups had to answer:

How can we apply what we have learnt today to our different ESJP contexts?

In no more than one hour this task was well developed by the groups. For the first question, all people concluded that:

·         Despite that there were different areas of engineering, the objectives are very similar. Helping people trough strategies that use applied engineering and consider the real needs of poor communities. In addition, those strategies must be culturally and economically sustainable over the time. 

·         Big engineer’s ideas not all the times work out well. It is necessary to know the "real issues" of people. In other words, not working for communities but with them.         

·         Engineering is not the only profession capable of giving solutions to vulnerable communities. In order to minimize risks, it is necessary an interdisciplinary knowledge in which social workers have a crucial role.

·         It is really important to share to the society what have been done in this conference. To do so, all participants agreed that papers and articles are one of the most effective ways to do so.   

·         Engineering must not only be in the most ambitious projects but also to serve the communities unprotected.  

According to the second question, what was concluded by all the members was:

·         Using academic terms and concepts with vulnerable communities might be seen as exclusion. In order to avoid that, it is necessary to soften the language that engineers use developing projects, so that the beneficiaries can understand them and feel they are part of the processes.

·         As engineers, measuring things becomes an essential strategy to resolve problems. However, when it comes to social work, there are not specific techniques for evaluating the impact of projects. For this reason, one of the biggest challenges is to create ways to recognize more easily the satisfaction of beneficiaries.

·         Based on all the presentations that were given during the day, one of the most relevant concerns was which of the projects is the best and what are the reasons for considering it. In other words, although all the projects are focused on applied engineering, not all are deeply involved with the communities. A few are methodical and theoretical

And finally, the last task of the three proposed brought interesting conclusions, especially for those who had not done that sort of activities before. Some of them are:        

·         Project planning without a proper social researching turns out to be hard  if you want to know what people need, why do they need it and for how long are they going to use it.  All these, in order to have projects sustainable over the time while minimizing risks.

·         Social entrepreneurship can be encouraged in engineers only if they are willing to work for people and with people.

·         It is necessary to measure everything?

·         Is the social area a technique?

·         One of the most difficult actions for an engineer is to develop projects that guarantee the ” social welfare”  ensuring that is culturally acceptable.  

- Jorge Enrique Diaz Martinez 

Follow the link for US folks to get involved, or learn more about how Colombian workers will join the AFL-CIO’s campaign in Washington in July to defeat ratification.

Monday, June 27, from 2:15-3:45 there are two sessions of interest. First Engineering Ethics and Justice will include papers from Caroline Baillie and Dean Nieusma. Unfortunately at the exact same time in another room, a session on Myths of Gender and Race in Engineering Education will feature papers from Donna Riley, Alice Pawley, and some other fellow travelers.  On Tuesday, June 28, also from 2:15-3:45 George Catalano, Donna Riley, and Dean Nieusma will join some kindred spirits in discussing the Ethics of the NAE Grand Challenges of Engineering.  Spread the word and hope to see you there!

On April 24, 2011, I participated in the Peace Pilgrimage for a Nuclear Free World. The Peace Pilgrimage, organized by Jun-san Yasuda from the Grafton, NY Peace Pagoda, began April 10, 2011 with a vigil at the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant, with walkers making a 206 mile trek to Vermont Yankee, where they held another vigil.

Although about 75 people participated in the last leg of the 206-mile trek from Marlboro and Brattleboro to the northwest, the march I participated in came from the southeast, in my home state of Massachusetts. Organized by Jonathan Stevens, this “downwinder’s march” began at 7AM on Montague Farm, 24 miles from Vermont Yankee. The farm was a birthplace of the US anti-nuclear movement in the early 1970s.  We journeyed through beautiful woods on backroads and trails to meet the other marchers.

We gathered around a sign at the farm that reads “better active today than radioactive tomorrow” and took a moment to remember those of us who have gone before. Jonathan Stevens talked about his approach to the march as being about reinvigorating the movement, about bringing a message of “wake up” to our communities – an appropriate metaphor on any early spring morning, but also a message that would resonate with Christians observing Easter that day. A few of the monks from the Leverett Peace Pagoda led us in a chant, and we were off into the misty morning.

We stopped in Montague Center at the home of Sam Lovejoy. He and his partner greeted us – and she joined the march for a while.  In 1974, when Northeast Utilities was seeking a permit for a nuclear power plant in Montague, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission required the utility to take one continuous year of weather data to characterize prevailing winds near the site. Sam toppled the radio tower that held the weather equipment, forcing the utility to restart its data-taking. Sam turned himself in, was charged, tried, and acquitted (follow the link above for the full story). In the end, Northeast Utilities abandoned the project.  We visited the site of the former radio tower along our route, pictured here.

Four of us walked the entire 24 miles, but we were joined by several others who walked part of the way with us, including some of the residents from Montague Farm in the 1970s, a dog, and an alpaca.

Due to a coordination SNAFU among the organizers, the 75 marchers that were part of the end of the 206-mile march reached Vermont Yankee early, but did not wait for our group to arrive, proceeding with their vigil in our absence. When we arrived, we offered our drums, chants, and prayers for a nuclear free world and joined the others for a potluck supper at the Friends Meeting House in West Brattleboro.

The greatest disappointment for me is that another engineering faculty member from a university in New England had joined the larger group of marchers, and we were not able to meet up and collectively represent ESJP. So close!

My reasons for marching were made clear on my signage. The first principle in safety engineering is to ask yourself “Can you design out the risk?” And if the answer is yes, then you do so. What Fukushima and the 25^th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster have brought into stark relief is the fact that engineers cannot anticipate everything that can happen, and risks we had quantitatively estimated as incredibly remote are happening with higher frequency than predicted. To design for the unanticipatable, we must think holistically about the scope and scale of our activities and their risks – and design out the environmental and human disasters that have become business as usual.

As folks in the US have revisited our own history of nuclear accidents , I am reminded that the largest release of radioactivity was not at Three Mile Island as is popularly assumed, but on Navajo lands at Church Rock, New Mexico. A dam failed at the site of a uranium mill there in 1979, resulting in a release of radioactive waste and heavy metals into the Puerco River, where contamination continues. While these long-lasting environmental and human costs of nuclear power are not widely known, they ought to have central consideration for those of us working at the intersection of engineering, social justice, and peace.

Additionally, I have been spurred to action against this particular nuclear plant because as the Fukushima catastrophe was unfolding, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission was relicensing the 40-year-old Vermont Yankee to operate for another 20 years past its scheduled end date in March 2012. The plant was given this seal of approval despite numerous incidents in recent years including tritium leaks, fires, worker exposures, and a cooling tower collapse. Despite poor management and a distinct lack of transparency on the part of the plant owner Entergy, the NRC gave up its best chance to strengthen safety and maintenance practices at the plant. With its federal relicensing, Entergy has now sued the state of Vermont because their state senate voted last year to prohibit the plant from operating past its original closing date in March 2012. It is not clear how the courts will resolve this conflict between a state’s right to shut down the plant vs. the NRCs right to relicense its operation. I am confident, however, that the people of Vermont and others of us in the 50-mile evacuation zone will continue working for a nuclear-free world.

The editors of Reconstruct are asking for submissions for Volume 3 of the zine to be printed in July 2011. We are asking for submissions from practitioners, students, and academics, who have something to say about the intersections of social justice and engineering/technology/engineering education. We are accepting art, writing, prose, poetry, essays, collages, lyrics, photos, reviews of films/books, or any other type of media that can be included in an online/printed zine. To see the type of submissions included in previous volumes of the zine, view Volume 1 and 2 of Reconstruct following this link: http://esjp.org/zine.

We believe that zines such as this are important in reconstructing our practices as engineers, reaching out to those outside our communities, and sharing our self-reflections with each other. Please consider contributing to this important effort.

Send all submissions to webmaster@esjp.org by May 31, 2011. If it can’t be emailed, email us and we will figure out a way to get your work submitted.

In your submission, please include:
- Your name (or name you want to be published)
- Contact information (in case we need to talk to you about your work — will not be published)
- A brief (50-100 word) bio or description of who you are/what you do, etc (not required).
- Your piece/submission should be in an attachment, not copy/pasted into the email. (If you have trouble with attachments, email us for help!)

What is ESJP?
ESJP is a network of academics, students and practitioners across a wide range of disciplines, who are asking two basic questions:
What does engineering look like which is socially just?
What does the education of these engineers look like?
For more: http://esjp.org/

What is Reconstruct?
Reconstruct is an online/printed open zine put together by member contributions. It explores the intersections of social justice, engineering, and technology. It is a zine committed to envisioning and practicing engineering in ways that identify and dismantle specific occurrences of injustice related to engineering and technology. Some contributions are from members of the ESJP network, others are not.

Here are some questions that could serve as starting points for submissions to Reconstruct:
- How do we talk about race/racism/colonialism in engineering education?
- Have you felt your personal identity or one aspect of your identity (trans, woman, differently abled) to be excluded from the culture of engineering?
- How do we practice engineering in a way that promotes accountability to our community(ies)?
- Is there a particular protest/direct action/occupation you are involved in that you would like to talk about?
- Is there a film/book/artwork that challenges technological injustice (anti-mining murals come to mind)?