Letters to the Editor

Author: [no author name found]

To the Editor:

In The Campus' Green Issue, Rich Wolfson ("Green's quantitative side," Nov. 20) argues that environmentalists here at Middlebury College ought to use more quantitative data to back the arguments we make. He posits, "being an authoritative environmentalist means being able to grapple with quantitative issues." This assertion is poignant and timely. The notion that the environmental movement is driven by wealthy elitists who care more about the fate of polar bears than poverty is in part due to an ephemeral discourse that steers clear of the economics or the scientific nature of environmental issues. I must, however, advise caution in the interpretation of the Professor's suggestions.

Environmentalists today have the responsibility to integrate scientific data with a moral discourse. If we do not use economics to value ecosystem services, or physics, biology and chemistry to predict what changes rising atmospheric carbon will bring, we are reduced to a moral argument in which one camp thinks the earth is more important and the other disagrees. Empirical data have shown us that humans depend on and are part of the environment, and that economic success and ecological health are inexorably tied.

However, it must be acknowledged that environmentalism boasts a less tangible side. Humans have a deep-seeded desire to connect to natural places. Reducing our consumption as much as we need to will require a cultural change that engages our perceptions of what is right and responsible. To eliminate this side of environmentalism is to adopt the attitude that the world is a puzzle to be solved, a system to fix. This attitude eliminates the human element. We need to change the way we grow and purchase food. We need to change the way we perceive our connection to land. We need to change the way we get from point A to B. All of these changes have quantitative elements, but they also appeal to what we think is right, just and good. You can't measure that with calipers.

Sincerely,
Jefferson Bates '08.5

To the Editor:

As a store owner of Sweet Cecily on Main Street whose back porch overlooks Otter Creek Falls, I can attest to how emotionally involved this community was in Nicholas Garza's disappearance. I was upset to read that there had been a private Memorial Service for him at the College ("College, family seek closure in Garza memorial service," Nov. 13).

The downtown shop owners had posters in their windows for months, closed their shops to search for him and said many prayers for him walking over the bridge. I can't tell you how much sincere caring and concern we all had as we saw his mother and his aunt around our town.

We assumed that at some point there would be a vigil so that the very group that lived this horrible event close up and daily could come to terms with its end. The Otter Creek will not seem the same for a long time to anyone who was around all those months.

We all mourn in our own way and try to have some closure as best we can, but it would have been important for this community to have had the chance to show Nick's family just how much we did hold him in our hearts and felt like he was "one of our own," as I had heard they asked us to do as the search continued.

Years will pass and the tree that was planted in his memory will grow and become one testament to this young life, and that was a fitting tribute, but there seems to have been a missed opportunity here, an insensitive exclusion of so many townspeople who gave so much concern and loving thoughts to a kid we never knew.

Sincerely,
Nancie Dunn
Middlebury, VT.

To the Editor:

I wish to respond to the article regarding the death of Matti Rudolph ("Former student dies in town on Halloween," Nov. 6). Although the College did not make a formal announcement regarding Matti's death, The Campus opted to make an announcement of its own - in an unflattering front-page article.

Not only did the newspaper take the liberty of announcing Matti's death to the entire community, it did so in a way that disrespected the life of someone who meant a lot to countless current students and alumni, and failed to consider what its portrayal could mean to his family.

The article seemingly portrays Matti as a scourge on the community, and in pointing out the no trespass order, the article makes it seem as if Matti was always unwelcome at Middlebury. In fact, the events of the night of his death were misrepresented, as Matti was not forced to leave, or escorted off the campus, but instead left without trouble. However, the events of the night of his death and the nature of his death bear no meaning on the person Matti was, and in bringing up these issues the article neglects to honor the many positive characteristics that comprised him.

Those who knew Matti will always remember those traits, but it is a shame that he was portrayed postmortem, and very publicly, in a way that fails to consider them. It is true Matti was a complex person, as we all are, and I would strongly urge The Campus to consider these points when covering deaths in the future.

Sincerely,
Caroline Wade '09.5