I was outraged by the Emerald’s editorial entitled “University shouldn’t hop on the pledge bandwagon” (April 9, ODE). I found poorly informed allegations against the graduation pledge alliance stating that it is unnecessary and inappropriately aligns the University with certain political agendas.
In light of the Emerald’s claim that a pledge for social and environmental responsibility is “unnecessary,” take a moment and consider a few of the sobering facts we face as global citizens. An estimated two to eight wildlife species go extinct every hour. At least 2.7 million people die prematurely each year from air pollution. Communities with a single hazardous waste facility have twice as many people of color as do communities without such a facility. During 1999, in the United States, 19 million adults and 12 million children went hungry.
In the face of such disturbing environmental and social realities, it seems absurd to suggest that encouraging others to consider how their jobs impact society and the environment is “unnecessary.” Although college students should be committed to overcoming such environmental and social horrors, many currently fail to consider the impact their job choice will have upon the global community.
Furthermore, people often feel overwhelmed by the magnitude of troublesome situations riddling modern society. The graduation pledge of social and environmental responsibility encourages graduating college students to manifest their social and environmental ideals in a proactive fashion by incorporating a sense of morality into their careers.
The significance of the graduation pledge is not reducible to simply signing a wallet card, as the editorial suggested. Rather, the card serves as a reminder of a commitment some graduates will choose to make, to utilize their knowledge to contribute to a better world for all.
In response to the Emerald’s suggestion that the pledge unnecessarily aligns the University with certain political agendas, I ask how is the phrase “political agenda” intended? If a “political agenda” is encouraging others to think and be compassionate, then the accusation is correct. What agenda is not political? And why should making conscious choices be apolitical? Living in a democracy, we are granted the right to participate in political processes and freedom of speech, whether it is in the grocery store or at graduation.
Graduation is not solely a time to reminisce about all the hard work graduates did while at the University. Commencement is a time to look forward, to think about how we will apply our education in the future. By allowing a group of students to encourage their peers to take responsibility for the impact of their job choice, the University is fostering a diversity of ideas and allowing for the freedom of expression that this country, and the institution of higher learning, was founded upon.
Regardless of whether we, as college students, acknowledge the current state of affairs, we live in a world teeming with environmental degradation and human suffering. The graduation pledge encourages us to act as global citizens by making conscious choices and applying what we’ve learned. After all, isn’t this what college is about?