Eliav Bitan, Winter 2006
To the Editor:
Readers of your editorial surely took away with them a vivid description of a very dire situation regarding allegations against Chevron in Ecuador. Unfortunately for them, none of it is true and the limited space for response does not allow for the rigorous rebuttal it deserves. Your editorial -- which contains unsubstantiated allegations and inaccurate representations of fact, science and the law, is nothing more than propaganda promulgated by cynical trial lawyers masquerading as human rights activists.
As Columbia's President Lee C. Bollinger said in his Statement on The Future of Journalism Education, April 15, 2003, "One of the most significant needs for journalists today is to have a high level of knowledge about the subject they are reporting and communicating."
In this case, the authors did not possess a high level of subject knowledge or, in our observation, try to enlighten themselves. They simply parroted back what was fed to them.
We don't expect that your readers will take on faith what we say, so we encourage them to review two balanced media reports on this litigation: "Slick," by Peter Maass in the March, 2007 issue of Outside magazine, and "Jungle Warfare -- A massive environmental suit against Chevron has strained the capacity of the European legal system," by Carlyn Kolker in the November 1, 2006 issue of The American Lawyer. Do we agree with everything in these two published articles? No, but we also acknowledge that they represent fair, balanced journalism -- something that is missing from your editorial.
Charlie Stewart
Manager, Issues and Litigation Policy,
Government and Public Affairs
Chevron Corporation
To the Editor:
"Chevron's support for universal human rights is a core value in The Chevron Way. We believe we have a role to play in promoting human rights that is consistent with our role as a business. We engage with key stakeholders, including representatives of governments and civil society, to contribute to an environment in which human rights are respected (link)."
That's The Chevron Way. Now let me tell you about The Texaco Way:
Support for universal human rights is a peripheral value in The Texaco Way. If it were a core value, we would not have used the Oriente watershed as a toilet for 19 billion gallons of our toxic petroleum waste, nor would we have done so on purpose. Sometimes we engage with stakeholders. Consider the Ecuadorian government. We settled the aforementioned toilet matter by giving them .2% of our current net income while their indigenous citizens continue to sip water from between clots of coagulated petroleum. We do not consider said citizens stakeholders. If we did, we would pay them reparations for the countless spontaneous miscarriages that our petroleum waste has caused. We extract oil from environments in which human rights might otherwise be respected.
Perhaps not surprisingly, Texaco no longer exists.
Surprisingly, that's because Chevron merged with them in 2001.
$40 million dollars and a 1-inch dirt covering over a few of Texaco's open oil pits haven't helped the Oriente's residents much.
Neither has Chevron's fancy website.
Sincerely,
Gabe Espinal
Columbia 2009
Co-president, Columbia Amnesty International
We thank Chevron and Mr. Stewart for their reading recommendations.
As students highly concerned with the ethics of Columbia's investments, we welcome additional information about Chevron. While Mr. Stewart offers these articles as evidence that our editorial misrepresented the facts, they support our argument for divestment from Chevron.Peter Maas, a reporter and author for Outside magazine describing Chevron's actions in Ecuador, writes, "throughout San Carlos, I smelled petroleum in the air." He describes visiting "a pit the size of several Olympic pools, filled with an oozy mix of oil and water....red and yellow flames leaped into the air from a set of elevated natural-gas flares; I stood about 50 yards away but was blasted by the heat as fumes stung my throat." After ten minutes at the site, Mr. Maas develops a headache. He continues, "There was a smaller pit across a dirt road and, a few dozen yards from it, a pond-size swamp. The swamp was black, filled with oil....This was just one allegedly toxic site among more than 350—including as many as 1,500 pits, the Frente [Front for the Defense of the Amazon, a local group of lawyers and locals who are suing Chevron] alleges."
Though Mr. Maas admits a lack of hard data, he writes that "journalists regularly emerge from the Oriente with horror stories about sick people and livestock, and about polluted land, swamps, and rivers." Recently, a rigorous study of sick people in the region led to an article in the International Journal of Epidemiology linking elevated cancer rates in the region to petroleum dumping.
The other article Mr. Stewart recommends, by Carlyn Kolker in The American Lawyer, focuses on legal aspects of the Chevron issue. Kolker emphasizes that for Chevron this is a contract issue, not an issue of environmental and social destruction. While the Frente alleges that "dumping caused a high incidence of cancer, spontaneous abortions, and birth defects," Chevron's response evades the social implications. Instead they claim "they complied with Ecuadorean law at the time."
But The Current did not accuse Chevron of breaking Ecuadorian law. Our concern is with Chevron's disregard for social and environmental responsibility. While the contractual issues are murky, Chevron's abysmal social and environmental record is clear. Chevron has dumped eighteen billion barrels of oil into the region. High cancer rates, water unsuitable for consumption and a crumbling ecosystem are Chevron's legacy.
We think Columbia should choose not to support this legacy. Columbia can make more money, and support companies that care about the social and environmental impact of their business practices, by choosing to invest in wind energy companies.
- Eliav Bitan
Managing Editor
Fly Like an Eagle
Mark Holden, Fall 2006
Mr. Holden,
I am an Eagle Scout as well and I am darned proud of that fact.
Society changes, and the Boy Scouts was designed to represent society as our nation might wish it to be. The more diverse we become as a nation, the more irrelevant Scouting becomes to some elements in our society. The only way to please everyone is to stand for nothing. And that is a position that I am proud that the Boy Scouts have not taken.
I volunteer as a chaplain at various regional scouting events to conduct the Scouts' Own Faith Services. We conduct church services where Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Buddhist, Protestant, Baptist, and Scouts of other faiths sit together, bow their heads, and commune with their maker.
After my last service, a gentleman came up to me and introduced himself as a Shiite Muslim. He said he found more acceptance and tolerance in Scouting in the United States than he found anyplace in the Arab World. He felt that he and his children felt a part of the Scouting family. He thanked me for providing a safe environment where he could practice his faith standing next to a Christian and a Jew, as that was what GOD wanted for us all.
Somebody in the media that beats up Scouting needs to go out into society and find me another story like that outside the Scouting universe. I am proud to call this Scouting Leader my friend and even prouder that he is my first Muslim friend. That is the gift of Scouting, the ability to bring so many together under one umbrella of values and a firm commitment to society, God and Country, to make us all better people, better citizens.
Yours in the spirit of Scouting.
William P. Hodges
Vice President, Sales and Marketing
Boutwell, Owens and Co., Inc.