Pledge is symbolic

responsibility
In response to the April 9 commentary titled “University shouldn’t hop onto pledge bandwagon,” the writers were slanted and uneven-handed in their stance. The editorial board hardly considered true reasons for supporting the pledge. Instead, the editorial board hung out a laundry list of reasons for not pledging symbolic support for social and environmental responsibility.
The primary reasons for discouraging the pledge were lack of student interest, the political bias of the pledge and the dampening of diversity.
The truth of the matter is that students have interest in the pledge, which is why it is being promoted by them. Now that the issue is before us, to not support the pledge is political bias of another kind, that of inexplicably supporting social and environmental irresponsibility. Lastly, not every university is jumping on the “bandwagon.” Only a few universities have agreed to proceed with the pledge. The University of Oregon failing to support the pledge is, in a sense, defeating diversity because the minority idea is being discouraged.
Whether students understand their social and environmental responsibilities or not is a whole different issue. Students can choose or not choose to sign the pledge. Those that do sign the pledge will symbolically support social and environmental responsibility and be promoting diversity.

Javier Ayala

Eugene

EWEB board needs

to listen to ratepayers
On March 19, I attended the Eugene Water and Electric Board public hearing regarding rate hikes and have the following observations:
1. The three members who voted for the increase (led by board President Dorothy Anderson) had apparently already made up their minds as to how they were going to vote, prior to any public input.
2. Public input is supposed to be weighed and carefully considered. Clearly it was not.
3. Many excellent cost-cutting ideas were given during public testimony. The board patently chose to ignore them.
4. Anderson told the audience that they were “spoiled” by the low power prices EWEB charges. This is not only an insulting comment to make, but it is arrogant as well.
It is also important to note that during public testimony, it was suggested that the rate hike decision be delayed by two weeks. If the board had done this, it would have at least given the appearance that they had given some consideration to public input.
The board has clearly shown how much contempt they have for the ratepayers by not even listening to them. EWEB needs to scour its budget for additional cost savings and clean its own house before they dip further into the ratepayer’s wallet.

Mark Hudson

Eugene