Office of Sustainability leaves ‘too much gray area’

I want to commend the Go Green Alliance and the SGA for their development of a sustainable vision for this campus. I am also encouraged to see so much support for this initiative among University students. I urge all students to be highly critical of what we are voting for.

Wednesday’s article states that the green initiative will generate $180,000 per year for an Office of Sustainability, and that office will use the money at its discretion to hire a salaried individual and provide student scholarships and research opportunities. So what does that mean, and is this sustainable in practice?

I argue this is unsustainable. First, $180,000 is a large sum. There is too much gray area for the allocation of these moneys. Issues immediately come to mind: How much does the salaried individual deserve? Will that person receive benefits such as health insurance? Do I want to fund someone else’s education (through scholarships) when I struggle to pay for my own?

Secondly, this Office of Sustainability seems to be just another bureaucratic office on campus. More issues: Is the University contractually obliged to honor recommendations made by the Office of Sustainability, or will they be engaged in non-binding agreements? What happens when there are no green initiatives to oversee? Who is eligible for these scholarships? Does the University have the capacity for green research, or the willingness? These are only a smattering of potential issues that arise in opposition to an Office of Sustainability, and should warrant no one’s vote. Do not just blindly vote for these issues.

I am excited the environment is at the forefront of public debate. But perhaps this money would be better used to hire a one-time outside consultant to review the practices of the University and make recommendations for change. This is the mission of the Office of Sustainability. I vote we use our money sustainably, as well as our environment.

Joseph R. McMillan
Senior, Atlanta
Ecology

Pandora Yearbook still in production

I thought the student body, Phillip Brettschneider in particular, would like to know that the University’s Pandora Yearbook will be in production for the 2009-2010 fiscal year.

I understand that in a time where the covers of our nation’s top newspapers talk of nothing but the economic crisis, it is difficult to see past the numbers and find relevancy in tradition.

But I would like to suggest that perhaps profitability and relevancy are not synonymous.

I agree with Mr. Brettschneider that a publication in financial difficulty should be subsidized only if it remains relevant. But how can a 123-year-old publication, which catalogues the most important events on our campus and in our community, not be relevant to a major university’s history?

If Mr. Brettschneider had done his research and thumbed through a yearbook, he would have seen first-hand that the Pandora does in fact reflect more than a “fraction of the myriad experiences and subcultures that compose our University.”

In fact, I will personally pick up the $20 tab for Mr. Brettschneider’s Pandora so that he can see just how relevant it is when he finds himself reminiscing with his grand kids about the time he spent at the University.

Claire Rock
Junior, Atlanta
Journalism