Latest "Panther" at Chapman criticizes Greenpeace recruiters.

After being told by multiple classmates, I finally picked up the paper and was not surprised to see a staff editorial by Kristen Salazar speaking out against Greenpeace on campus.

Apparently she got cornered and was late for class and the recuriter wouldn't let her go. Below are some of the gems.

I hate all solicitors, but Greenpeace just
tops them. It has great causes but terrible
means. I understand solicitors have a purpose,
I just want their purpose to be a lot quieter and
less invasive.
Using slanted questions to guilt people into
supporting a cause is not the right way to motivate.
People should be passionate about the
cause without having anyone manipulating
them into it.
I’m in full support of saving the rainforests
but the way Greenpeace talks to me about it
makes me want to print 100,000 photos of
felled trees out of spite. Since I resent its tactics,
I have come to resent its causes.

This is exactly what I have been writing about. I like Greenpeace's cause but their recruitment methods of cornering and laying on guilt makes me run for the hills.


But here is my favorite part of the article:

I finally got to class and told everyone
about being accosted by Greenpeace.
They all seemed to agree that while
they do enjoy whales, they don’t enjoy being
told that whales are dying because they’re
not donating a minimum of $15 a month to
the cause.

The entire class agreed with her. Not one person enjoys their methods. Abigail, why not change to more passive aggressive methods? Start it in Orange County, and then if it is successful let it spread throughout the nation. It might not be as profitable in the short term, but in the long term it will restore credibility and hopefully boost donations to Greenpeace. Who knows, maybe Canada will restore its Charitable status.


WWF does it. They receive almost double the amount of donations that Greenpeace enjoys. So what say you Abigail?

You can read the paper here.