Dear Dean Cadman:
Thank you for your prompt response to our email of Monday. I have read both your email and the memo from Dean Swearer with great interest. I must say that we continue to be as perplexed and distressed as before.
There seems to have been a complete absence of sensitivity to student perceptions. Why were they not part of the fact-finding process? Did the architects speak to any students, or did they act on the basis of priorities set primarily by the dean?
Architects follow directions. Calling this the Helpern Plan seems a bit disingenuous. Has it occurred to you the possibility that you are proposing to excise a vital organ during cosmetic surgery. Apparently constrictive time limits have been given to the faculty task force, and, I am sure, a bitter ultimatum to a few concerned faculty, while probably others will be let go outright.
Anyone would like to have a nice-looking place to eat, but this is a ridiculously high price. I fail to see why anyone would want to contribute toward a capital campaign by an art school that would exhibit priorities such as these.
Why not have the architects design a more radical expansion, adding much-needed space, and have a long-range plan for that, with a capital campaign your constituents and those outside could support?
Sincerely,
Gary Kessler