n David Brand says Greenpeace turns the cold shoulder, (“A cold shoulder from Greenpeace sparks ethical inferno,” Mar. 7, p. 9) and he is absolutely right. However, Greenpeace canvassers have to do that so they can do their job. Brand is wrong in his assumptions about the Greenpeace mission. The purpose of canvassing (standing on the sidewalk on Commonwealth Avenue approaching everybody and anybody) is not friendly flower-power colloquy by any means. More so, it is a blitz of relevant eco-information geared at environmental activism and why we (the people!) should engage in this activism. Their job is not to get you to say, “Hey, it is 55 degrees outside on this end of February/beginning of March day. Maybe global warming is a problem,” and then go out to save the planet, because you won’t.

The purpose, or the mission, is to get your money, so it can be put to use for lobbying and demonstrations. If you do not want to give or cannot be convinced, you are wasting their time, and time is money. So when Bernie, the not-so-affluent “BU bum” strolls over for a conversation, he is wasting their time, unless, of course, he contributes.

If Bernie doesn’t plan on paying up, passersby won’t know the difference. They’ll think this Greenpeace employee has found someone else to “prod and coax” for the purposes of “bank account infiltration.” We all know the best way to avoid the Greenpeace dude is when he is using his “reverse-psychology” on somebody else. Since the Greenpeace guy is being distracted, he can’t do his job: He can’t save the planet or the baby seals or the natural resources.

Greenpeace is an organization, and as an organization, it has a responsibility to its contributors to be as effective as possible. Its goal is not to inform the public, because information yields nothing. Rather, its business is to take action, which requires cash. To get cash, they have to engage as many people as possible, find those who care, and inform them of exactly why they should give as much as they can afford. Most college students can spare $10 per month so their kids can perhaps one day live in a better environment than their own.

So the next time Brand walks by Bernie, perhaps he will talk to him to keep him from distracting Greenpeace. The reason I say this is not because of some great love for Greenpeace (which may be a bit radical) but because I once canvassed door-to-door for a similar company. Rule number one (or three or four) is to minimize conversation with those who won’t contribute. In this case, a homeless man was seemingly interfering with an organization’s business, a business that invariably helps us all.

Matt Goyette

SMG ’09