Cornell University, after years of resistance from faculty, students, the City and Town of Ithaca and Historic Ithaca has announced today that it will pave the historic green space known as Redbud Woods. This decision came as a large contingent of senior faculty, including some of the best minds in ecology, historic preservation, urban planning and horticulture, as well as faculty from across the unviersity, pleaded with the president for a moratorium to get a better process and hopefully a better outcome. Student protesters occupied the forest in the spring, and forestalled the building of the lot until today. The polcie have moved in. Why does this matter?
Here are issues that matter to Kossacks and any person who cares about the environment, fair porcess, and higher education being a last bastion of respectable consideration of facts:
- an institution of higher learning has chosen to ignore expert advice of its senior faculty, while calling "sustainability"one of its hallmarks, and is paving a piece of land when there are clearly alternatives.
- the university has gone against the wishes of faculty, students (the student assembly rejected this three times), the city and town legislature and the zoning boards and historic societies; local assemblywoman and town and city legislature all turned up and pleaded on behalf of the woods
- the university officials have said that they will not guarantee that the police will not use force, pain control or violence if the student protesters who are currenlty in the trees and in lock boxes resist arrest
- faculty who were negotiating a diffusing scenario with the president were called into his office at a 2:30 meeting, while the polie moved into the woods to secure it. The faculty members feel they were tricked
- Cornell' reputation has already been hurt by this. Senior faculty from across the campus suggest that Cornell's credibility in its main areas of expertise (environment, etc.) is seriously compromised.
If you are a Cornell alum, please consider contacting interim President Hunter Rawlings at hrr6@cornell.edu and telling him what you think. Copy Provost Biddy Martin (cam18@cornell.edu) as well.
Please consider letting people who work in environmental issues and sustainability know about this. YOu can read sketchy reports from tired activists at:
http://redbudwoods.org/home.html
The university is trying to spin this by saying they ahve an excellent reputation in sustainability (they may have) and that the faculty and students and town and city are acting like children. Faculty who are stunned and shocked by the university's disregard for what the university faculty think have said things like this in letters to the President:
The administration's action can only poison the atmosphere that is so vital to attracting a first rate leader to the University. The University community of faculty and students has offered a reasonable proposal concerning a Task Force to approach the parking situation over the next six months. Your response is being interpreted as a betrayal at a time when many of us had confidence that you might bring a fresh vision to the administration. A faculty vote of no confidence would strike a terrible blow to the University. I hope that you can restore our faith that you ca nact more wisely.
Professor Paul Sawyer, of the English Department, had this to say:
Dear Hunter,
Thank you for your availability to students and faculty--it's important and appreciated.
I know you are swamped with work now and don't look forward to more reading. If the stakes weren't so high I would not be troubling you with another message. My belief--and the belief of senior colleagues I've spoken with who are not intimately connected with the Faculty Working Group--is that moving on the woods is not simply a wrong move, it is simply NOT AN OPTION at this point. Possibly you've come to this view as well. But possibly not. I write because I have to be sure you are aware of the realities of this situation. I promise to stay within the limits of what I consider LIKELY and PROBABLE and not to indulge in worst-case predictions. As concisely as I can make it:
If the University were to move against the woods, here's what would probably happen:
--A complicated, expensive and risky procedure of removing students that would almost certainly take several days, involve the building of a fence, and (in my best guess, since I am not privy to the details) necessitate:
--tearing students out of lockboxes, using pain pressure points, mace or some other SWAT-team-like device;
--taking them out of trees by the same method
--doing so in front of national press. (This is a great likelihood. A New York Times photographer and journalist were present during the unannounced confrontation of June 6; the students know how to contact them and probably others.)
--doing so in front of faculty and community members, some of whom may wish to be arrested, others of whom will act as witnesses to publicize, demand accountability in case of accident, and conduct forums on campus in the fall. I would be one of these.
This means a good possibility of (for example) young people being pictured on the evening news shrieking or crying, wrestling with (unwilling) police, throwing their arms around trees, pleading, etc. I don't mention graver possibilities (falling from trees, other bodily injury); I'm not being lurid, I'm being concrete; I don't justify the tactics, only describe what the young people are prepared to do.
The University can certainly justify extreme measures, since it clearly has the right to defend its property--but ONLY WHEN (a) the student group is so extreme, irrational, or marginalized that it fails to arouse sympathy among rational observers or alienates influential blocs, and (b) the University's reasons are overwhelmingly compelling. Neither is the case now.
Here's what would probably happen afterwards:
In doing damage control, the University would first of all have to counter the initially powerful and emotional imagery of woodlands vs parking lot. In the ensuing debate, the following would come clear as the chief reasons for moving against the woodlands:
(1) That the lot is primarily intended for the use of undergraduates owning cars, to spare them the necessity of parking their cars in the unused, outlying A-lots. (By "primary reason" I mean the reason without which the lot would not be built. A number of other reasons--the need for construction workers' parking, the possibility of employees' using the lot after 5-10 years, the possibility of the city's building a water tower, even the graver consideration of the safety of female students--have not figured prominently in the history of the University's justifications; can be resolved readily; are transparently not in themselves enough to justify cutting and paving.)
[POSSIBLY?](2) The lot is primarily a "place-holder" for a larger West Campus Residential Initiative, the details of which (if it exists) the University has kept a profound secret. That master plan in all detail would have to emerge, withstand public scrutiny, and survive the suspicion that failure to discuss it openly heretofore was disingenuous.
(3) The lot had to be built because it had been planned. This is, I suspect, the major reason in the minds of many proponents of of paving, overriding all others. Its value as an argument needs no discussion here. (The same with the argument from cost. Despite existing work contracts, leaving the woods cannot conceivably be more expensive than cutting and paving.)
What would the damage be to the University's image and good name? Greater than any event in its history. I include the Straight takeover, which forced the resignation of President Perkins, but even then, the anger of faculty, alums, etc., was directed at the protestors as well as the administration, which clearly acted in the only way it rationally could have to resolve that crisis. The present group of students is non-violent.
That's why I and others have used the word "catastrophe" to describe the effects of moving on the woods--even if there were no serious injuries. I of course also have in mind the present juncture in the University's history: a painful resignation; the beginning of an interim administration; the beginning of a capital campaign.
Clearly we do not now face the kind of situation about which reasonable people can disagree. Reasonable people can disagree about the need (great, somewhat, not much) for the 176 parking spaces; moving on the woods would be reckless, risky, damaging and unconscionable--to a degree exceeding any previous administrative action in the history of this institution. On the other hand, the benefits of backing down now are abundant; you've heard them; we'd be more than willing to help (I have not seen faculty so energized about an issue in twenty years).
Respectfully yours,
Paul
We realize that this may seem like a minor story on a day when Rove is lying his head off and we have other fish to fry. But those of us who have been working on this issue realize that the day is now here when universities are run like corporations, faculty and local townspeople have no say, and private police forces are willing to use pain control to disable non-violent protesters -- to build a parking lot so rich students can drive their SUV's to school, and park them withint 300 feet of thewir dorms.
Jane Marie Law, (a shady Percheron horse enthusiast) wrote this to the President:
Dear President Rawlings:
Thank you for taking the time to meet with a group of us this past Friday afternoon. We are grateful for the chance to keep a dialogue open. We continue to be committed to working with Cornell to find viable, sustainable and sensible alternatives to paving the area now known as Redbud Woods.
Following our Friday meeting, a group of the faculty and students committed to this project chose to meet for an emergency session this morning, Sunday, July 10. We met at 9:00 a.m. In attendance were five faculty leaders of this group, and five of the students who have been core players in the opposition movement to the paving of the forested area. We are all in touch with a lot of people.
Here is a synopsis of what follows below, provided out of consideration for how much you must be having to read in a short period of time.
1. We had an emergency meeting because we feel there is a breach of trust and an emerging crisis looming should the administration decide to go ahead with the paving of the forest.
2. We are deeply concerned that the administration has grossly underestimated the opposition to this project, the damage it will do to Cornell, the extent to which this is a movement that will not END but INTENSIFY should construction start, and the number of faculty who will remove themselves from supporting various optional educational initiatives on campus which depend on faculty good will to be effective.
3. We are imploring you to take us at our word that this project would be a very bad move for Cornell, and will represent a serious, deep, and perhaps irreconcilable breach for many people.
4. We continue to be committed to working with the administration should you choose to reverse this project and preserve the woods, but in the event that the administration ignores or dismisses the considerable intellectual expertise, passion, judgment and democratically expressed voices of the many people opposing these woods, we will, in many different ways, begin to exercise a sustained dissent. The results of this dissent will not enhance what you are purportedly trying to create by the construction of a parking lot.
Now, to the details, point by point:
We had an emergency meeting because we feel there is a breach of trust and an emerging crisis looming should the administration decide to go ahead with the paving of the forest. The collective judgment of a large number of faculty in the working group is that the continuing possibility that this area could be paved over (however nicely), and the deeply flawed (and we are concluding, not altogether forthright) process that has gotten us this far constitute a serious CRISIS IN OUR COMMUNITY and a BREACH OF THE TRUST WE ALL REQUIRE TO WORK WITHIN THIS INTELLECTUAL COMMUNITY. We are, all of us, stunned by the depth of the opposition to this proposed lot, within Cornell, across the political landscape, among students, faculty, staff, local Ithacans, neighbors, and even police and construction workers who speak as individuals. We feel that this sentiment is not being actively gauged by the administration, and if it is, and you are choosing to ignore it, then we have an even bigger crisis of process.
We are deeply concerned that the administration has grossly underestimated the opposition to this project, the damage it will do to Cornell, the extent to which this is a movement that will not END but INTENSIFY should construction start, and the number of faculty who will remove themselves from supporting various optional educational initiatives on campus which depend on faculty good will to work. A surprising number of faculty, staff, and students are willing to get arrested to protect these woods. Some faculty are proposing to boycott, permanently, the West Campus Initiative and any activities not mandated in our tenured contracts. Parents are beginning to speak to the guidance counselors in their hometowns about the attitude Cornell has shown to a democratic process, town and students. Local school children are skipping their activities to come out to the woods. Neighborhood associations are up in arms and the City of Ithaca has ruled against this proposed lot. The New York Times ran an article; a celebrated children's author is doing a book about this crisis. International blogs are talking about this. Why? These woods are not that big, nor are they going to tip us into global catastrophe if they are paved. But that is not the point. THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT THOSE TREES ANYMORE. WE NEED YOU TO HEAR US ON THAT AND RESPOND APPROPRIATELY BY CHANGING COURSE. These woods have now come to represent a large nexus of very legitimate concerns: concerns about the rhetoric of sustainability when the actions are the opposite, concerns about the town/gown relationships, concerns about the democratic process and faculty involvement in decisions on this campus, ecological concerns, aesthetic concerns. We have argued each and every one of these points, point by point, and the best specialists in the field recognize our upper hand in all of these arguments. Yet the university would continue to push ahead with this scheme? Please know this: if you choose to move ahead with the paving of the woods, this movement will get bigger and stronger. The STARTING POINT of a larger movement, operating when you will have lost the good will of the very people you are hoping to serve, will be the next time those bulldozers and chainsaws show up at Redbud Woods. As a scholar of social movements, I find it fascinating. As a community member, I am disturbed and worried about what will happen to our many overlapping, interconnected communities. And please also know this: THIS MOVEMENT IS NOT GOING AWAY should the woods be cut down. This is not a threat. It is a fact, easily gauged if you speak to the many people we are in contact every day in the community and on the campus. There are an awful lot of us. Do not underestimate how many people will show up in those woods. People have not lost interest. They are preserving their energies for an all out occupation of the woods should you decide to go ahead with it. The media is lined up. Independent journalists are lined up. The larger Ithaca community of concerned citizens is lined up. We are waiting for one answer from Cornell: the decision to abort this project and begin the hard, messy, but in the end, much more effective and sustainable work of solving our deeper problems. We are there for that hard work if you change your mind. If you go ahead with this disaster, you will have squandered our good will at a time when you will, undoubtedly, need it the most. This is not intended as a threat. It is a simple fact.
We are imploring you to take us at our word that this project would be a very bad move for Cornell, and will represent a serious, deep, and perhaps irreconcilable breach for many people. We have written studies, conducted research, done our homework, and sent our reports everywhere. We have the best minds in the fields of urban planning and ecology and social movements working with us. We feel we are not being heard. The process is deeply flawed, and we are losing trust. The very thought of the bulldozers coming into those woods at this point, and the inevitable conflict that is going to involve, worries us greatly. We fear for the safety of those willing to not give up. Those protesters are not going to give up. There is a looming crisis and we ask you to avert it.
We continue to be committed to working with the administration should you choose to reverse this project and preserve the woods, but in the event that the administration ignores or dismisses the considerable intellectual expertise, passion, judgment and democratically expressed voices of the many people opposing these woods, we will, in many different ways, begin to exercise a sustained dissent. The results of this dissent will not enhance what you are purportedly trying to create by the construction of a parking lot. At our meeting this morning, and in our conversations over the past few days, we have noted that people are starting to weigh in on their options, should you decide to go ahead with paving the woods. The ideas people are coming up with, based on principled views of good, solid, sensible people, are painful to hear. Many of us are proposing to stop working altogether with non-mandated (i.e., optional and not required in our contracts) established educational initiatives on campus, and turn instead out attentions to working with those in our intellectual community who would work to refashion a more democratic, sustainable, and sensible vision of a educational community. This is deeply painful for us. We love teaching and we love our university. But we feel our university is ignoring us and is making a grave error, almost in passing.
In conclusion, I would like to say something about the transformation many of us are experiencing. I have been teaching here at Cornell since 1989. Many other faculty on our committee have been here much longer. I cherish those magical moments when faculty and students are really engaged in a deep educational moment. These moments have a transcendent quality to them. They are rare. I believe this kind of experience is what you had in mind when you envisioned the West Campus Initiative. This morning as I sat at a table with five faculty and five students discussing how we were going to deal with this crisis, I was deeply moved by the realization that it was a magical moment. Everyone's compassion was fully engaged. Our intelligence was working for us. Our rapport was deepening by the minute. We were all being transformed, faculty and students, young and old. There was a sparkling of respect and affection and intelligence and vision that was realistic and wide awake.
This transformation is only beginning. I again implore you, on behalf of those of us present this morning, to reverse the direction of this project, and join with us as we move ahead to do something truly worthy of the vision of Ezra Cornell, and all of us who live here and love this institution and the beautiful place where it sits.
It is a sad day in Ithaca, NY.