On April 18, the Daily published both a news article, “Officials say contract isn’t certain,” and an editorial, “Budget crunch calls for selling out,” concerning the proposed campus-wide monopoly beverage contract.

I wish to comment on both of these articles.

I have been involved in this matter since fall 2000 when I was asked to represent the Faculty Senate on a committee charged with considering alternative beverage programs, a committee appointed at the direction of Warren Madden, Vice-President for Business and Finance, who also sits as a member of the committee.

The position in your editorial is straightforward: The university needs money. A monopoly contract will produce money. Take the money!

This position is quite consistent with a purely short-term perspective on our bleak budget situation.

It accords with the committee’s complete concentration on producing an exclusive contract.

But why stop with beverages?

Aren’t cars and clothing other examples where private firms might pay for a campus monopoly?

The problem, of course, is the deplorable neglect of basic, long-term ethical, educational and environmental values, which deserve to be resolved before negotiating any specific monopoly contracts.

To do otherwise is to choose ends over means.

Your news article was quite superficial.

Much more information on the flawed committee process, including the role of the beverage consultants and the basic underlying issues, is readily available.

For example, a reading file located in the Faculty Senate office, Lab of Mechanics, contains considerable public information.

Your article quotes Mr. Madden at length.

I have heard (and read) his reassuring comments about “other universities doing it” many times. I have also heard previously his use of gentle ridicule about “beverage police.”

The latter is an effective technique to make those of us who are concerned about the economic and ethical consequences of monopolistic collusion appear naive and foolish.

The fact is that a “request for proposal,” prepared and approved by Business and Finance personnel, offered beverage brand exclusivity for any university-sponsored activity (unless catered).

Yes, that means student activities and departmental meetings of all types could only pour the monopoly brand!

How far removed are campus cola cops from that?

Lehman B. Fletcher

Professor

Economics