Interview: Educating Beyond Obligations? This is where today's students are better than in the past

Where was your passion for geography born?

The truth is that I originally wanted to study geology. Professors from the Holešov Grammar School recommended that I go to Brno, where good geology courses were available. I applied, but I didn't get into geology. In afct, the year I applied, only ten geologists were admitted to the faculty. However, they offered me a place in physical geography and I grabbed it. I didn't plan too much for the future, I thought that next year I would sign up for geology again. But then I started to like it, so I stayed.

What was the course like at that time?

During my studies, there were basically two types of course, vocational and teaching. Those who wanted to take vocational studies - and I was one - had to study teaching as an extension. In many ways, both types of study were similar, but we, as future experts, had some extra lectures.

Finally, in addition to being an expert in the field, you have also become a teacher. What brought you to this decision?

In the early days, I focused on physical geography and specialised on geomorphology, on which I also based my thesis. After graduation, I started working at the Prague Institute of Cartography and Reproduction, but there I was dying slowly. Working in a giant map-making conglomeration was depressing and not a bit creative. I was looking for any opportunity to escape. Coincidentally, I got an offer from Masaryk University to join as a climatology “aspirant”, similar to today’s Doctoral program. At first, I wasn’t quite sure; but then I found out that the course would be based on microclimatology and topoclimatology, and I realised that I would be working in the field and taking various measurements under my own supervision. In the end, I liked it so much that I have stayed at Masaryk University, latterly as a teacher, from 1976 to today.

What was Masaryk University like at the time of your studies and during your early teaching years?

At least as far as my personal development was concerned, it was all quite grey and everything was under political control, with communist youth training camps (Svazácká školení), political updates at study group meetings, Marxist-Leninist teaching, and so on. It did nothing to support creative professional activity.

How has the Institute of Geography changed since you started?

Everything was much smaller than today. This is the principle of growth. Not only was my workplace smaller but professional activities within the workplace were less varied. Today, the work is more diverse and we work with more commitment on current topics. I would also say that interpersonal relationships are better today, and that is a sign of the changing times. On the other hand, when comparing what is required now with what was required then, university educators had a much simpler professional life as the criteria for expertise and growth were not so demanding and one’s ‘ideological growth’ was always being watched.

Have you changed teaching methods over the years?

Using new teaching methods is certainly a worthwhile and obligatory activity, but the personality of the lecturer – both the expert and the professional - is the most important, that is the “persona grata”. The lecturer not only provides the content but also the ‘electricity’. They can either get the students excited about a subject, or can completely put them off.

Practical use of new scientific research, and hence educational techniques, was not always possible in the past. They were simply not accessible. New techniques might stretch “to the level of a slide projector”. Given the more theoretical and technical nature of my lectures, however, I did not feel too limited. These included disciplines such as atmospheric physics, microclimatology, meteorological measurement techniques, atmospheric pollution and bioclimatology. When I want to describe a process, and I express that process with a series of formulas related to each other, from my point of view there is nothing simpler and more operative than to take a piece of chalk or a marker pen and deduce them all one after another as they progress. Because if I just show it to the students, they may not be able to process it; It is necessary to "touch" the thing, to derive the formulae, to see into it.

When it comes to measuring technology, that’s a different case. There I have always tried to show the students what was has been created or acquired. Alternatively, I take them somewhere where some interesting technique is in use, such as the Czech Hydrometeorological Institute. However, meteorology and climatology, including their subparts, are much more about numbers than other geographic disciplines. Without any irony, they are not such romantic disciplines as botany or biogeography. Simply put, it is largely physics with a bit of chemistry. Experiments represent an integral part of our work; however, while physics or chemistry experiments are relatively easy to model in a laboratory, a meteorological experiment is not.

How are today’s students better than previous ones, and in what ways are they lagging behind? Has their approach to college changed?

Students today are completely different from us. We were like high-school students, too dependent. In fact, we only fulfilled those obligations that were obligatory, and these were rather tedious. Practical experience was not really available, with some exceptions. That is why I liked working on my diploma topic; I went out to map the terrain and slept under a tent, so I really enjoyed the experience of working at the meteorological observatory. We also had a limited regional perspective. We couldn’t “go out”, so we basically did just what the system asked us to do. We took our annual exams, then state exams and then we would go somewhere to work. We couldn’t speak too much about whether we wanted to focus on this or that. In addition, teachers were required to take up prescribed placements.
Today, students have incomparably greater opportunities. They can benefit from a wider range of scientific information. This is also associated with incomparable opportunities for trips abroad, scholarships and study visits. And taking it to a private level, if I am interested in an Alpine glacier today, I will simply go to it. Today, moreover, students often learn beyond their school responsibilities.

Do you think that the endless range of possibilities also entails problems?

Today there is amazing freedom in research. However, it may happen that, because of that freedom, one starts to think misguidedly. Then there must be someone who tells them, “please, not like that”! - this should be the moment when the teacher intervenes. What is great today is that students themselves can come up with something that interests them, something they want to solve; they can then ask for consultation and assistance from the institute, who will either help the student directly or recommend someone else.

Speaking of students, how do you communicate with them?

I have always tried to make students believe in me, not to be afraid of me but to see me as a friend and colleague. It is important to note, however, that a university teacher should not, at least while studying, be a complete friend with students. The student-teacher roles must be clearly divided, because if we were on the same level then one of us would be useless in the relationship. But I have to say that I have never had a problem with my students. I demand certain things from them and treat them fairly, they know this, respect it and value it.

What do you value most about Masaryk University today?

This is a difficult question. If I had to compare it with other high-quality universities in Central Europe, Masaryk University has a very good professional level and good collegial relations. Here, no one stands out as a demigod or superman; at least not in our institute and, as far as I know, in the whole faculty, we treat students in a friendly manner. I haven't experienced anyone driving around.

Your professional domain is climatology, and especially polar climatology. What are you focusing on now?

I think, given what I’ve done, I deserve some rest. However, I was given the status of an emeritus professor when I retired, without actually trying to get it. That pleased me very much. It’s a kind of proof that I still mean something to the faculty. And so I continue to focus on the geographical topics I introduced here, but in a stress-free and relaxed atmosphere. These include the aforementioned polar climatology, systematic polar research and the like. I also participate in the work of the Czech Antarctic Foundation. Unfortunately, however, these types of activity start to be age-limited at some point.

An important moment in your career was undoubtedly the establishment of the Czech research station in Antarctica. At what age did you first smell the freezing climate?

It’s been a long time now. Here at the institute, we started planning it sometime in 1985. We went to Spitsbergen as part of the Polish expedition of the University of Wroclaw. On a second occasion, we were on the Spitsbergen glaciers as part of a 1988 Russian expedition. One year later, we repeated this with the same group in another part of Spitsbergen. Then we muttered a little and I applied to the Czech Science Foundation to undertake Antarctic research. Surprisingly, it worked.

Why did you choose James Ross Island for your work?

First, we thought about South Shetland, but there were already too many research stations there. With British help, we then moved to the southeastern coast of the Antarctic Peninsula - an area with plenty of untapped scientific potential. We picked a place for the station on James Ross’s north coast. The British, Argentines and Australians have all been very helpful in choosing the station’s location and in getting international recognition, while Russia and the US have taken a more harsh attitude.

What are the most important results of your research?

As I said, we were looking for a place that was scientifically virgin, hence everything we touched on there was new. For all the scientists that have worked there and those who continue to work there, the island has a significant impact on their work. The island is extremely interesting, both geologically and paleontologically. As the first group there, we began extensive meteorological measurements and we started a geomorphological, glaciological and biological program, including microbiological research.

When was the last time you visited Antarctica in person?

It’s been a few years now, perhaps four or five. If it came to it, I’d would go there tomorrow. But people get older, their physical performance decreases and, if one thinks realistically, they would only hold back the others, unless they want to be the cook. As with athletes, everyone has to realise their performance limits and then leave a space for younger researchers. I’ve been to Antarctica a total of twelve times and for me, in addition to work, there was also great relaxation.

Many people today imagine Antarctica in the context of ice melting and global climate change. This is considered the greatest environmental threat today. How do you view climate change?

Many people are a little hysterical about climate change. When you see Antarctic films made by an ecological institution, scenes in which melting water flows from glaciers tend to be predominant. One has the impression that the Antarctic ice is disappearing before our very eyes. Today, however, it is known that glacial sheets are the most important climate stabilisers. This is related to the fact that a relatively large amount of energy is required to dissolve ice. The Antarctic Glacier Shield’s response time to climate change is about three thousand years. As such, it acts on the climate like a huge time flywheel that significantly slows down climate change on a planetary scale thanks to global ocean circulation.

So do you think that climate change does not threaten us?

I do not want to say that the climate does not change. The climate must change because it has always changed. Clearly, the Earth’s climate is currently warming. In the past, however, there were warmer periods. I see a greater danger from the emission of toxic substances into the atmosphere and oceans by burning fossil fuels, which are increasingly affecting both environments. However, we are still unsure what the cascade of consequences will be for the biosphere.

From the perspective of our planets geological past, we can evaluate current levels of climate change as the start of a new change in our global ecosystem. What is extraordinary, however, is the fact that, for the first time in Earth’s history, the change is being caused by anthropogenic activity. There are several forecasts for the future of planet Earth, but each one is more or less burdened with erroneous estimates. Only the future will provide the ultimate truth on their influence.

However, this does not mean that we can ignore the state of the Earth’s environment. We have already seen a number of significant negative environmental changes that require rapid solutions from the companies that caused them. The changes in the Earth’s cryosphere cannot be ignored and scientists in this field have directed a number of serious warnings to those in the economic and political spheres of society. Unfortunately, we are still waiting in vain for a relevant response.

You talked about people reacting hysterically to changing conditions. How do you explain that?

The problem is that we are looking at climate change in terms of our own fears. We have seen enormous droughts in recent years, but we often see this as a ‘sensation’ rather than a problem that needs to be addressed immediately and systematically. It feels to me like a fear of having to adapt. The more society becomes reliant on its industrial-agricultural infrastructure, the lower our will to adapt, despite our level of knowledge. As a result, some people can make quite a profit from climate change.

What do you mean?

Everything is abusive and climate change is no exception. Today, if you trigger the right alarm in the right place, you can make a lot of money. Or use it to push through ones ideological or political goals. People are more susceptible to hysteria than scientifically proven facts, and respond to it sensitively and, unfortunately, often emotionally and misguidedly.

Is climate change an overused concept?

How and for whom? Unfortunately, it is a term often used by those who can profit from it. Both the level of awareness and the level of honest information on the risks of changes to the planetary environment are not yet at a point guaranteeing the implementation of globally beneficial projects protecting our planetary ecosystem. And I see a role for academic institutions in this; educating younger generations in the workings of our planet’s ecosystem so broadly and truthfully that they will be able to solve our local and global environmental problems more effectively than ever before.