Turf Wars
New words: Water bill; turf; If You Give a Mouse a Cookie
My job is doing its best to ruin my mental health. On Monday I was pushed to the edge by a student whose primary mission seems to be making me miserable, so I took a personal day and went to the Art Institute to remind myself that beauty exists.
Tucked between the Kahlo and Caillebotte was a video installation called “White Marble Everyday” by Clarissa Tossin.
Tossin’s video portrays the anonymous workers who maintain the pristine illusion— an arduous task that requires huge amounts of water, cleaning products, and time— highlighting the labor and resource exploitation that sustain the legacy of modern architecture.”
The phrase “the labor of exploitation” echoed in my head all day with dual resonances: Is it pointing up the exploitation of the laborers by the extreme system designed to maintain the marble?; Or is it meant to describe the degree to which we exploit people the way we do?
While there is really no comparison between the subject of Tossin’s installation and RVC’s commitment over the years to maintaining “the legacy of modern architecture,” I couldn’t help but think about the notion that what we choose to maintain— and how— says something about what a community values.
One of the topics we as Trustees have recently been tasked with thinking about is RVC’s shift from grass athletic fields to turf fields. During the Committee of the Whole (CoW) week before last, we were presented qualitative and quantitative research on turf fields, student surveys performed by the college, and testimonials from coaches. The RVC soccer coach gave a presentation on the benefits of turf. It was clear that RVC was not making any official recommendation or endorsement of turf, but there was an obvious hope that turf would be supported by the Trustees.
Interestingly, the whole affair seemed to make people nervous, and there was much discussion and crosstalk and even some grandstanding. This (well, not the grandstanding) made sense, given the project’s price tag. A transition from grass to turf brings a hefty price tag of $4.2 million and it is our job as Trustees to ensure that the College is spending funds in a responsible way that advances our mission. The most cogent argument against turf that some Trustees were able to propose had to do with the safety of athletes. For as long as I can remember, turf has been characterized as the more dangerous of field surfaces. Indeed, this was the narrative I was still familiar with. Yet, when we were presented with research, as well as the dozens of schools in our area (high school and college) that use turf, we learned that the jury was still out on the overall safety of turf. We also learned that a poorly maintained grass field could be more dangerous than a turf field in any condition. I started to see things differently. Even Rockford University made the move to turf, which they broke ground on just a day after the RVC Trustees voted (their new $4.3 million turf field was funded by an Illinois Board of Higher Education Independent Colleges Capital Investment grant).
And yet, through this whole discussion of safety for our athletes, not once was the topic of pesticides brought up by a Trustee as a concurrent safety concern. If we are so concerned about the safety of students falling on turf, why are we not equally concerned about the materials they are playing on day in and day out, materials that will wind up on their clothes and skin (not to mention in the water and the bodies of wildlife)?
According to a document President Spearman’s leadership team provided Trustees called “Responses to the Board of Trustees’ Inquiries on the Athletic Fields Renovations”:
Maintaining natural grass fields often involves regular application of chemical fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides to preserve . . . quality and control weeds and pests. These chemicals can pose health risks to players and maintenance staff and may contribute to runoff pollution that affects local ecosystems.
In contrast, modern synthetic turf systems significantly reduce the need for chemical treatments. While AstroTurf does require periodic cleaning and may occasionally need to be treated for bacteria or algae, its overall chemical footprint is significantly lower. Furthermore, today’s turf systems are made with improved materials, including non-toxic infill options such as coated sand, organic compounds (like coconut husk or cork) . . . reducing concerns historically associated with older rubber-based infills.
I like the idea of our students not playing on pesticides, and I like the idea of not further degrading our beautiful campus and its wildlife if we can avoid it. I voted in favor of turf.
Maintaining grass fields or turf on a college campus probably isn’t what Tossin had in mind when she filmed workers in Brazil cleaning the marble at the Federal Supreme Court building, but what it’s caused me to think about is what we maintain and how and why, and that what gets maintained says something about the maintainers.