The still in-progress Class of 1978 Life Sciences Center has drawn criticism due to its construction costs as the College is still exiting a period of budget cuts ("Prof. seeks to clarify Life Sciences Center expense," May 7). Previously, faculty members have questioned the necessity of staff layoffs while construction of the Life Sciences Center and Visual Arts Center continued. Yet even with the large sums of money involved and the seemingly hypocritical nature of spending tens of millions of dollars on construction and renovations while simultaneously cutting back in other areas, we stand behind the idea that now is the best time to pursue these projects. These new facilities will provide an enduring benefit to the College beyond the enjoyment of the student body that warrants the expense even in a time of crisis.
First, most of the funding going toward each construction undertaking was earmarked for specific projects by the donating alumni. The College has no power to reassign the $12 million donation from the Class of 1953 to a purpose other than a dining facility. Why not use these funds now, when the administration has additionally found numerous ways to cut costs of the project, which will allow the donations to go even further? Rebidding construction contracts on the Visual Arts Center saved the College $10 million ("Administrators finalize budget cuts," April 12) while renovating Thayer Dining Hall instead of building a completely new facility will save additional funds in addition to making the building more efficient ("Kim avoids specifics of budget slashes, layoffs," Jan. 19). If anything, using donation money for efficient, large-scale, tangible campus improvements should encourage more alumni giving.
Moreover, the costs to students and staff from delaying these projects are far worse than the short-term cost of charging ahead. Both the Charles Gilman Life Sciences Laboratory (built in 1964) and Thayer Dining Hall (built in 1937, and last renovated in the early 1980s) are in desperate need of replacement or renovation. The new buildings will provide an upgrade in safety, improved energy use and technological advances providing a huge boost for student life, faculty opportunities and staff facilities on campus.
Dartmouth cannot, and should not, hold back on construction projects, even in this difficult economic climate, particularly because other Ivy League schools are continuing construction projects this year despite the costs. Yale University, for example, borrowed $540 million to pay for several building projects while Princeton University broke ground on a new neuroscience building for less money than originally expected due to lower construction costs. With the construction industry nationwide still in a slump after the recent recession, it is far more reasonable to pursue construction projects now instead of later, when demand and costs will be higher. With its own donation money earmarked and ready, Dartmouth should do everything in its power to utilize this opportunity to gain an advantage over its rivals. Merely keeping up with or worse, falling behind our peer institutions in any category would be irresponsible on the administration's part.
Progress is not cheap, but it is necessary to further the goal of making Dartmouth the best institution of higher learning possible. We must not let current budget difficulties derail the future more than it has already stalled the present.
