It was disappointing to open the Lanthorn this week to an article that pitted ethics against economics, and then forgot to include any sound economic rhetoric. The argument the article makes, that GV should end its contract with JP Morgan’s p-card system is specious at best and destructive at worst. Any review of the p-card contract should be based on the merits of the benefits and costs the contract provides, and that alone.

The article was not thorough in its analysis, so I wish to add further clarity here. The argument displayed is that JP Morgan Asset Management, the current provider of Grand Valley’s p-card system, provides mutual funds that allow investors to invest part of their portfolio in shares of PetroChina (herein PTR), which somehow shares cash flow and securities with JP Morgan Treasury Services, the provider of the p-card system. This is false. PTR is a subsidiary of China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), the government owned oil ministry of China. CNPC lays claim to oil field assets and refinery operations in Sudan, whose government directs 70-80% of oil revenue towards its military, which is involved in a horrific genocide that has killed nearly 400,000 people in Darfur. The effort to halt the genocide is meritorious, but because the argument is entirely derivative, it will have no measurable effect and will hinder Grand Valley’s ability to manage its operating budget.

First, any money involved in Grand Valley’s p-card contact does not enter the mutual fund pool to be invested in PTR. Second, PTR, as a subsidiary of a government ministry, has no effect on the operations and policies of its parent company. Next, I have seen no evidence of PTR operations in the Sudanese oil industry, or clear funding of Khartoum’s military budget. Furthermore, JP Morgan owns an insignificant amount of non-governmental PTR stock (less than one third of one percent), and will not cause any political or economic policy adjustment, especially when it comes to the genocide in Darfour. PTR is one of the three largest companies in the world by market capitalization, so any divestment effort outside of the Chinese government will likely not yield any change in Khartoum’s behavior.

Without knowing the details of the p-card contract, I presume that GVSU chose JP Morgan because it would allow them to take advantage of payment control, oversight, and compliance review that yields cost savings throughout the University. These budget controls have a measurable effect on student tuition, faculty and staff compensation, and regional philanthropy, and ought not to be subject to non-productive campaigns such as proposed in Ms. Skowronek’s article.

If we truly wish to affect change in Darfur, we should apply increasing pressure on the Chinese government, it’s citizens, and diplomats, and work to raise awareness in the global community.

Will Hibler

Student

I’m writing in response to the January 9th editorial “snowball effect”. While I usually find the Opinion section well-written and thoughtful, I found this editorial ill-informed, poorly written, and just plain offensive. Gross factual inaccuracies aside, the tone was offensive in that the author, like many in the media, has sought to exploit this tragedy for the sake of launching political tirades against their opponents. Without even waiting to hear how much damage was done in the shooting, networks like CNN were already rushing to establish tenuous and ultimately faulty links between the shooter and various famous conservatives, despite there being zero evidence as such.

And then, we’re bombarded with a variety of stories about all this “dangerous rhetoric” that could have engendered an atmosphere of fear and anger that caused the shooter to snap. We’re told that we need to stop the vitriolic and reckless rhetoric, yet many of these people calling for such, including the author of this editorial, seem to be unaware of their glaring hypocrisy over using the exact same style of rhetoric.

Establishing a link between the shooter and either side of the political spectrum is pointless. From evidence gathered thus far, the man is clearly insane, and hardly represents the spectrum of rational thought enjoyed by our community. Rather than attempting to lay blame on one group or another, we should be offering our support and prayers for Congresswoman Giffords and the other victims of this tragedy. It’s the sane thing to do.

Brian Hudson

Student