::sigh::

My brother directed me to this NY Times article about Reed’s current financial woes.  I have to say, one thing that really bothered me was the mention that Reed intends to move forward with plans for a new performing arts centre… on top of all the other new buildings and new land it has built or bought in the last six years.  Could it be that Reed has stretched too far and needs to reel things back in again?  Is a new performing arts centre *really* more important than admitting the best students, regardless of need?  Some of the most brilliant Reedies I’ve ever encountered would not have been allowed to Reed had it been admitting based on lack of need rather than fitness of match. 

I know that I’m over-simplifying, and I know that a new arts centre will be welcomed by the students and teachers who use it most (and, probably, the public that will be brought in to shows).  But I believe that - unless NOT going ahead with it will end up costing more than going ahead with it will - it is more important to maintain Reed’s ethos (second time in two days that I’ve made reference to that) than continue with new buildings.  Reed: Postpone the new build.  Remember that $50,000 is a hell of a lot of money for *anyone* to cover annually, and almost certainly means that more students are financially needy than before.  And remember, while you are agonizing over “protecting the character of the college” (which I do actually believe is important to you), that old and beat-up is as much a part of the Reed character as cutting-edge, if not more.  Prexy will hold for a few more years, as will Kaul and the theatre.