The National Science Teachers Association has been getting a lot of press lately for passing on an offer of 50,000 free copies of An Inconvenient Truth. Laurie David, a producer of the film, wrote an op-ed piece in the Washington Post basically asserting that NSTA declined due to the influence of their corporate sponsors (Exxon Mobil, Shell).
In the original NSTA email response to the offer, they said they didn’t want to offer “political” endorsement of the film and they saw “little, if any, benefit to NSTA or its members” in accepting the free DVDs. Additionally, they wrote that accepting the DVDs would place “unnecessary risk upon the [NSTA] capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters.”
Since David’s piece, NSTA has responded, saying
“In the op-ed Ms. David goes on to characterize NSTA as a willing corporate America partner that eagerly pushes corporate messages about the environment. This is not true.”
Their response also states that they “are working to promote the availability of the film.” The response goes on to describe the productive programs their corporate sponsorship has funded.
Apparently, their president-elect called into NPR and said NSTA “would have accepted the donated DVDs if it hadn’t been for the distribution costs, which he estimated at $250,000.”
While I don’t think oil companies are telling NSTA what to teach, money can be a very motivational factor in determining policy. I think it comes down to NSTA opting to play it safe because of their sponsors. The buzz Laurie David’s op-ed piece created is now forcing them to come out and defend their position. They’re highlighting a conflict over the distribution methods for the DVD as part of the reason for their rejection. What does it cost to send a DVD through media mail? A dollar? I wonder how much they paid to distribute “You Can’t Be Cool Without Fuel.”