|
by Sonja Jacobs '00, Monte Smith '00, Jennie Johnsrud '00, and Julia Willis '00 In the 4 weeks following the opening of Buntrock Commons, there has been a dialogue emerging about the building and about students' feelings about the building. This article is a reprint of our original questions and issues for thought, but with some additions and clarifications to help advance the dialogue. Thus far, reaction to Buntrock Commons has ranged from awed to simply passive to discouragingly ungrateful and greedy. Many students seem to 'expect' such an extravagant facility, and complain that it's been so long in coming. We should be incredibly grateful for this building and all the resources it brings to our campus, keeping in mind the fact that most people just don't have advantages like this. Some facts seem to be in order. The money that the Buntrock family gave to build the Commons ($26 million) covered less than two-thirds of the actual cost of the building (around $40 million*). The Buntrock family's gift was incredibly generous; this is indisputable. But St. Olaf did have to spend its own money for the building, and that fact should be out in the open. The administration, in planning for Buntrock Commons, had in mind that it would be a place of community and comfort for all students, present and future. Certainly, the decision was not dictated solely by financial concerns. But just as certainly, marketing considerations for the future played a big part in this decision, just as in all college decisions. St. Olaf is being managed more like a corporation than it ever has been in the past. The reality of how the college works is something we can never fully understand, and we recognize the complexity of issues that face any decision the administrators make. St. Olaf, like all colleges, is forced by current trends to compete in a college market, and therefore must have facilities and amenity offerings that will attract new students and keep current students satisfied. However, to what extent should St. Olaf bow to these disturbing trends, to what lengths will the college go to attract high school seniors, and how much money is the college justified in spending to play the competition game? When the Paracollege was cut along with other programs (speech/theater, social work, hockey and wrestling) in spring of 1997, it became clear that St. Olaf was changing paths. Science and music were considerably strengthened, and the rest of the liberal arts were, comparatively, left behind. This is a phenomenon that faces many institutions of higher learning these days; the so-called 'mainstreamization' of higher education. As students who care about education, we have a responsibility to question decisions that are made about our school and its future. This does not necessarily mean that we all have to disagree with the cuts and the plans to build a new science center (as well as other portions of the thirty-year plan of the college), but we do have to question those plans. We do have to ask if the future of St. Olaf meshes with our own vision of what the future should be. One of the best things about St. Olaf is the sense of community that's built here. Buntrock Commons was designed with that in mind, built to foster community. However, St. Olaf has also had a history of being 'campus-centric'--our interactions with the Northfield and greater communities is surface, at best. To what extent will Buntrock Commons further that divide? To what extent will Buntrock Commons hinder students' living within a wider world? The truth is, Buntrock Commons is in excess of anything we need here. Given that part of the St. Olaf mission statement is to encourage 'moral sensitivity' among its students, and given that we already consume much more than our share of the world's resources, how can we feel morally comfortable with such an extravagant building? Volunteering and abroad programs are two of St. Olaf's greatest strengths. The Volunteer Network is one of the strongest campus organizations, and many students are involved with volunteer work in Northfield. And, as Duke Sutton pointed out in his article in the 11/19 Messenger, St. Olaf has incredible international studies opportunities. Our question would be: why aren't more students applying what they're learning off-campus to our lives here? Volunteering at the food shelf in Northfield or studying abroad in a so-called '3rd World' country should induce a questioning spirit (although, of course, this is not the only impetus to be a questioning person). Questioning our values, our decisions, the global situation that causes inequality, our own participation (direct or indirect) in creating inequality. Studying abroad, for example, has exposed us to poverty and really seeing inequality clearly for the first time. This has forced each of us to take a close look at all the extravagances in our lives--bulging closets, three cars in the garage, Starbucks coffee, even enough confidence in our future economic situations to take out huge loans now to pay for St. Olaf. We are grateful for these things, but that does not necessarily imply that we feel morally comfortable with our privilege and our opportunities. In the same way, we must question Buntrock Commons, and question how to feel morally comfortable with its extravagance. Buildings are not 'just buildings.' Nothing else has a greater impact on us than our environment. Moreover, everything we build is a representation of our values, which automatically gives buildings particular significance. The architects and designers of the Commons surely did not see it as 'just a building,' otherwise why place such importance on aesthetics, on the use of 'real' materials. Buntrock Commons represents how highly we value community. It also represents how much we value comfort and beauty. Comfort is not inherently a negative thing, but at St. Olaf we are allowed to hide in the luxury and comfort of our privilege, and this has divided us from the rest of the world. The important thing is not to be complacent. We don't have to dislike or be ashamed of the building. This may not be the response when you take the time to actually think about the Commons. We can like and enjoy the building and the space, while being conscious of our privilege. Perhaps the most important thing to think about with this issue is that we have got to remember that our lives are part of an infinitely bigger picture. When we wrote about Buntrock Commons possibly hindering students' living within a wider world, this is what we meant. Having a broad vision of the past and the future, and a broad vision of the world right now, not just the St. Olaf campus. We need to think about how our decisions affect the future, and how our decisions impact us and the rest of the world. We need to take responsibility for that. And if we find that we don't agree with decisions, we must protest. This is our responsibility, primarily as humans, but especially as privileged St. Olaf students who live in the United States. Many thanks to those who sent us comments and questions. Keep the dialogue going! *the figures quoted by several sources, including Pete Sandberg, director of campus facilities, varied, but $40 million is an averaged estimate.
|