Adolescent thinkers will rely on adolescent sources 

Letter writer Morgan Edwards implies Third District supervisor candidate Adam Hill has been “bad-mouthing” incumbent Jerry Lenthall for not “believ[ing] in [Mr. Hill’s] views” (“Do your homework before voting,” May 1). On the contrary, Mr. Hill has run a clean campaign; rather than stooping to attack credentials or character, Mr. Hill has, quite respectfully, refuted the incumbent’s political stances.

As a Cal Poly graduate (M.A., English, 2005) and former student of Mr. Hill’s, I also question Mr. Edwards’ citing the dubious Polyratings website, wherein students rate their professors anonymously—and, generally, after receiving their grade. Though sometimes helpful, polyratings often becomes a de facto sour-grapes forum. Did Mr. Edwards read the mostly positive comments about Mr. Hill on the site? Like the negatives, they should be taken with a grain of salt. Students—current and former—are of course entitled to their views, and here’s mine: Adam Hill respects his students and values their opinions; he is encouraging and insightful; he is available and helpful during office hours. If we must lower our discourse to the gutter of “character issues,” I would say that’s enough integrity for Mr. Hill to claim on his website, despite Mr. Edwards’ inept cries to the contrary.

Voters with adolescent sensibilities will inevitably rely on adolescent-level sources in forming an opinion: polyratings, Fox News, half-cocked letters to the editor (this one included). Intelligent voters will stick to the issues. As a San Luis Obispo County native, I would hope the latter are in the majority.