Woodbine worth worthy
I have been following the discussion about the remodeling and repair of Woodbine Cottage with some interest. Having been a student off and on for most of my life, I appreciate the sensitivity we develop toward some uses of our student fees. I would, however, like to offer two ideas for consideration.
First, accomplishing the classroom goals of the University requires classrooms. Beyond the tautological, however, are those mechanisms of University operations that are necessary to keep it going. A primary example of this is that we keep presenting a bright, positive image to our constituents and stakeholders – the students of SDSU and citizens of the State of South Dakota. For longer than most of us have been alive, Woodbine Cottage has been a part of that face. I am not privy to all of the reasons that went into scheduling the repairs and choosing the funding stream to pay for them – consider this – Woodbine doesn’t have semesters, holiday breaks, or other convenient time periods for maintenance work.
The second idea I would like to have considered concerns the preservation efforts themselves. It is possible to cut corners, replace windows, siding and so on with like-appearing materials and processes. The reason this should be considered the very last resort in maintaining an historic structure is that doing so means you can never go back. The building is no longer historic, but only old fashioned. No longer a unique statement, anchoring us in the context of all our own and our parent’s past, but a logo, a sound bite marking time on Medary Avenue. Every sash, every stick we replace pushes us further into the future, giving us one more chance at piecing together our common identity. We can keep on saying “This is who we are.” We could also give up, and lament “this is who we were.” I am very, very happy with the choice we made.
Stephen Van Buren
SDSU University Archivist
Woodbine important
As president of the Students’ Association, I am compelled to comment on the concern mounting around the renovations and improvements to Woodbine Cottage.
As someone who represents the students, I fully understand the concern; however, I do not believe that students were given the whole story in the articles that were printed in the Collegian.
Woodbine Cottage is a University-owned building, just like Rotunda, Scobey, and the Campanile. Therefore, the University, using Higher Education Facility Funds, (HEFF), is responsible for any repairs to the facility. The only difference between those buildings and Woodbine Cottage is that the SDSU presidents are expected to live there. EVERY SDSU President has and will live there. The money used to obtain Woodbine Cottage came from HEFF, and regardless of how much money is spent, that money is money put aside specifically for University buildings. Woodbine currently has no insulation, the roof leaks, the siding has rotted through in many places, and 63 of the 74 windows DO NOT work. Because the house is on the National Register of Historic Places, and has been since 1991, it is required to do any renovations or repairs according to their guidelines, or no work can be done at all. These guidelines do not make the process any cheaper or easier for the University. Also, these renovations and improvements are making the house handicapped accessible in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Furthermore, Woodbine Cottage is a staple of our University. Many, many events are hosted at Woodbine Cottage, including the Hobo Day Committee Dinner, the Staters for State Christmas Party, Dinner for the Distinguished Griffith Foundation Lecturers, SD government leaders on the city, state and federal levels, plus board members of the SDSU Foundation and Alumni Association, and the list goes on.
Woodbine Cottage brings a sense of history to our campus, and becomes, “our home” in the middle of our campus. This is an important project, and I can guarantee that students are not suffering or going without because of these renovations and improvements.
Also, as a side note: The University spent over two years trying to get the Brookings Historical Society to relax some of their guidelines so the costs would be less. Regrettably, they refused to do so, and the Board of Regents had to repair the house as they had directed.
Given the seriousness of the needed repairs, the house could not have been used safely for much longer.
Amanda Mattingly
Student Association President
Polygamy unsupported
A recent letter to the editor insinuated that Brookings Wesleyan Church supports polygamy. Nothing could be further from the truth. The table-toppers that the writer referred to were intended to catch people’s attention, not to endorse or support polygamy–a practice the Bible clearly forbids.
Was Solomon a polygamist? Yes. And King David was a murderer and an adulterer. Rahab, who is mentioned in the book of Hebrews as a woman of faith, was a prostitute. Before Paul the Apostle was born again, he murdered Christians. The list could go on and on.
The fact that the Bible records the stories of men and women who sinned does not imply that it approves of those sins any more than a table-topper about Solomon’s many wives implies that our church approves of polygamy.
The fact is that God dealt with the sins of Solomon, David, Rahab and Paul, just as He will deal with our sins. They, like us, needed the redemption that only Christ can give.
Solomon eventually figured out that polygamy was destructive and turned his attention to one woman, the woman he writes about in the “Song of Solomon.” The class is not about polygamy; it’s about one man pursuing one woman in a relationship blessed by God.
Lastly, the writer questions how this table-topper received a stamp of approval.
Considering some of the posters displayed on campus and some of the subjects discussed in the Collegian in the past, I think a table-topper promoting a Bible class should be the least of our concerns.
Pastor Rick Wipf
College & Career Fellowship
Brookings Wesleyan Church
UPD wasting time
I write today simply to express my true thanks and appreciation for the brave men and women of the University Police Department for tirelessly patrolling the choice parking spaces of the All Classes lots near the football stadium, the Performing Arts Center, and elsewhere on campus.
Who can say what sort of chaos and mayhem would reign throughout our campus, even through the entire community of Brookings were they not there, bravely putting their lives on the line to keep deadbeats who haven’t jumped through the Remote Parking Permit hoops out of our otherwise-unused parking spaces? They and their silly golf carts truly are protecting our safety, our freedom, and even our very way of life every day, by making sure that, should several hundred more students enroll here in the next hour or so, we would have enough truly lousy parking spaces to allow them all to get to class only five minutes or so late.
Ben Nesson
Senior
Computer Science
UPD crosses line
I have an idea for an article that I believe will shock the students and community, as well as bring attention to an important issue. This issue I speak of is involving to militaristic dictatorship of the UPD. As a student I believe that it is the UPD’s job to serve and protect us and the citizens of Brookings, but other students and myself believe the organization is corrupt. A student can’t walk across campus at night without being followed, and then called over to their car, upon talking to an officer the question isn’t “how are you doing?”the question tends to be “have you been drinking?”
Not only is this bad, the issue gets worse. A week ago my girl friend was giving me a ride home from her apartment and we passed through campus. At the time we didn’t know that she had a head light out, but UPD stopped us to inform us, which in all reality is their job. But the young officer, who appeared to only be 2 or 3 years older then I, looked in the car at me the passenger never looking at my girl friend while talking.
Now I am not sure if this was racial profiling or some thing else but things took a drastic and unneeded turn for the worse. He then asked her to go back to his car, and proceeded to ask about her private life.
Yes, the UPD is widely despised around campus and many of them do a great job but isn’t there a line that cannot be crossed?
Bill Reyes
Brookings
Related posts:
Follow Us!