Committee lacks adequate student representation

Today the future of one the treasured Purdue fountains might be a little clearer.

Purdue's Architectural and Landscape Design and Planning Committee will meet this afternoon to discuss the future of the Class of 1939 Water Sculpture, located in front of Hovde Hall.

The committee will also be considering the proposal that was introduced earlier this month consisting of placing a large, stainless steel tube around the water jets. This plan is believed to reduce the probability of injury by limiting access to the powerful stream of water, which shoots hundreds of gallons of water upward some 40 feet. This is one proposal the committee will discuss today.

There is one problem with the committee, however. The committee consists of 10 professors and two staff members — no students.

Now, as Greg Fredrickson, professor and chairman of the Architectural and Landscape Design and Planning Committee, points out, student representation concerning the fountain issue exists in abundance on another committee.

"I want you to know that there were more students on that (fountain advisory) committee than any other group," Fredrickson said. "So there were six students, there were three faculty, there were three administrators, there were three alumni and there were three community representatives. And you know who the chair of the committee was? A student."

Indeed, the Fountain Advisory Committee did include six students and three apiece of Purdue faculty, administrators (yes, these groups are different), alumni and community members. But should student representation be excluded on one committee because it was abundantly used in another? You've had your one committee, now shut up? That doesn't sound right.

In fact, Fredrickson, who is not responsible for the selection of the committee, doesn't disagree that a student should serve on this committee too.

"There should be. In fact, I can remember at least in one past year in which the students were appointed," he said. "But what's happened is, I guess someone didn't get around to appointing them or notifying them."

Public dissention regarding the tampering with the fountains has been received from all representatives of the community. The entire Purdue family, for the most part, was vehemently opposed when the thought of a fence placed around the fountains was considered. Opinion hasn't changed much since the idea of the "floating cylinder" was conceptualized. What has been realized, right or wrong, is that this community cares more about this fountain than a lot of other issues. But it's more than the fountain. It's tradition. It's pride. It's a symbol of Purdue.

No matter what the reason this community cares about that large waterspout is, it does.

With that, representatives from every segment of the surrounding community need to be actively involved in any and all committees regarding the future of the fountain.

Aside from the fountain advisory committee, the only voice the students have concerning their fountain is through the numerous e-mails Purdue officials have received and the large quantity of letters to the editor this office has had to swim through.

It's very possible that having a student representative on this committee wouldn't change the outcome of what is decided with the fountains. It's doubtful that a student voice is going to be as influential as that of a Purdue professor's or an administrator's. However, as our founding fathers learned (with one slight word change), determination without representation is not only secretive, it's often unfair.

Editorial Board: Keith Thomas, Kurt Esposito, Jamie Teibel, Ian Clift, Anna Herkamp

'Black box' only offers more 'headaches' for drunk drivers

Committee lacks adequate student representation

Fountain committee should think again

Fountain cylinder is old concept

OPINIONS DESK PHONE:
(765) 743-1111 ext. 256