The potential destruction of an unusual and historic campus building, West House, is a further example of the lack of sensitivity to anything that no longer contributes functionally to the University. Yes, another nail in the coffin of the idea that beauty and history in and of themselves can serve a function. If there isn't money to be made or saved then -- no go. Poet Thomas Disch recently observed, "Like windows, the arts are, by their nature, an invitation to vandalism, even as those who love them boast that art is long, though time is fleeting."
A Wednesday article in the Chapel Hill News confirms the moral bankruptcy of the Master Plan, which continues to speak with forked tongue. The Arts Common, which will result in the destruction of West House, is a desirable addition to and expansion of the arts on campus.
But surely a plan could have been drawn up which would preserve such a historically and architecturally interesting campus building? The Master Plan should have at least creatively solved such a dilemma. If the building, with its miniature enclosed garden, could not be preserved in the Arts Common, could it not be moved to a safer location?
Is it always to be left up to the people in the community to rise up and ask these questions or to gather their concerns for preservation after the fact? Will any history be left on this campus if it doesn't reside inside the two main quads?
Jeffery Beam
Assistant to the Biology Librarian
Botany Section
