Since its inception in 1987, MEC Board members and staff have analyzed and evaluated its role in the community. Hardly a month goes by where someone fails to suggest the MEC develop more effective means of soliciting support and involvement from established environmental groups and persons in the "mainstream."
These suggestions are taken seriously and have been a source of disappointment to MEC staff when unable to meet the expectations of those expressing them. The MEC would like to cultivate more productive affiliations with mainstream groups and individuals and establish a broader base within the community - but only if that does not entail alienating its existing base or compromising on issues.
One of the primary strengths of the MEC is its willingness to serve as advocate for unpopular causes and groups who have been marginalized by the dominant society.
The MEC solicits participation of Native Americans on its Board of Directors. Latino groups and activists are welcome at the MEC. IWW members, back-to-the-land enthusiasts and Earth First! organizers have received support. So, for that matter, have members of the mainstream community, who endorse and support the MEC's environmental and social justice programs.
An attraction of the MEC, to many of its members, is this diverse mix of occupations, ages, opinions and agendas, that defies comfortable explanation or definition.
The determination not to dismiss or ignore unpopular ideas or groups has given the MEC a reputation for perversely cultivating extremists and harboring eccentrics. The perception of many is that the MEC advocates environmental policies or practices that are doctrinaire, impractical or even dangerous.
Class differences determine the attitudes of some MEC critics in the community. They are reluctant to fraternize with those they perceive as not in sympathy with their social and political values and beliefs. Economic stratification creates an unwillingness by some to form common cause with low income members of the MEC.
Perceived threats to their livelihoods are factors in discouraging support for the MEC from some members of the timber and gravel extraction industries. Because of the controversial reputation acquired by the MEC, some members of the community are loath to become involved through fear of censure and social ostracism.
In responding to suggestions the MEC become more "mainstream", Board members and staff point out that maintaining a stubborn independence is one of its major strengths. Being too willing to affiliate and seek alliances with other groups and organizations could result in a dilution of its mandate - which is to address environmental issues in an impartial, persistent, and informed manner.
Those expressing strong views on environmental issues are often dismissed as impractical and visionary. It goes with the territory. One expects controversy and conflict in an arena where economic, political and social values are so intensely invested.
Even if the olive branch were extended, historical precedent is hardly reassuring that the interests represented and goals sought by the MEC would be endorsed by the mainstream. For example, Native American and other minority groups have been disinclined to join with the "establishment" on boards or committees having environmental responsibilities because their views and interests have frequently been ignored or rendered ineffective.
Therefore, we anticipate the debate on "mainstreaming" the MEC will continue and welcome all participants - and suggestions. Perhaps one of the conclusions reached will involve the realization that the debate reflects issues, polarities and conflicts, intrinsic to the environmental movement and the process of review and discussion helps define our personal role in contributing to environmental protection.
Copyright Mendocino Environmental Center 1997
Permission granted to excerpt or use this article if source is cited