Thank you for running the "Holy Cow debate isn't so black and white" editorial (ODE, Feb. 8) and pointing out some important facts surrounding this issue, most notably the financial situation the EMU is in. However, I would like to point out that the issue isn't whether or not Laughing Planet is guilty of being "greenwashed." Instead it is the lack of transparency and student involvement in a decision that not only affects the daily lives of the student body, but in fact also denies their interest. University students want sustainability to become a reality not a buzz word, and while Laughing Planet would be a welcome addition to the EMU alongside the Holy Cow at a later date, right now Holy Cow's successful and clear-cut commitment to sustainability remains superior and unquestionable. This is why the decision to choose Laughing Planet over Holy Cow for financial convenience amounts to socially irresponsible greenwashing on the part of the administration.

Thomas Kirkpatrick
University student

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools

Be the first to comment on this story

• Name: (required)
• Email: (required)
• NOTE: Email address will not be published
• Website:

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail

Email notify will not work because you are not currently logged in.
Click here to quickly login or create a free account.

Type your comment below (html not allowed)

  I am not posting spam. I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.