MINUTES OF THE FACULTY FORUM

February 17, 2004

Subject: Proposal to Build a New Campus Center

The Chair of the Forum, Professor Thomas Banchoff (Mathematics), convened the Forum at 4:06 PM.

Faculty members of the Task Force Professor Howard Chudacoff (History) and Julie Strandberg (Theatre, Speech and Dance) were in attendance as were representatives from the Administration, David Greene, interim vice president for campus life and student services and Richard Spies, executive vice president for planning. The task force worked in concert the architecture firm, Venturi, Scott Brown and Associates; the task force coming up with ideas and the consultants researching how to implement them. The Forum began with Professor Chudacoff summarizing the recommendations of the task force. Their initial charge was to consider the status of dining and fitness facilities at Brown. They recommended that the “Ratty” be renovated and that a new fitness center be built but they moved quickly on to consider a campus center that would enhance the unique learning environment at Brown. The task force agreed that they didn’t want the usual student center – pool tables, climbing wall, hot tub etc, rather, they envisioned a campus center that fit in what Brown was about i.e., pursuit of learning, integrating knowledge and contemplation. There is a shortage of meeting rooms and classrooms and places where group study can occur - places where students could go to talk about what they were learning. The task force members recognized that learning doesn’t always take place “at the feet of old professors” – rather students are inspired by their classroom experiences then gather more information, contemplate and synthesize what they have learned. The Center should provide space and facilities to support this co-curriculum.

David Greene, Interim Vice President for Campus Life and Student Services, explained that after the consults surveyed students, faculty and staff a common theme emerged that that the proposed campus center should foster a sense of community. People talked about Brown as being a “community of communities” Many members of the Brown Community surveyed stated that they weren’t coming together as they should. There are few places where graduate students and particular medical students can meet. There is also a lack of late-night, centrally located facilities that could accommodate student schedules and for indoor activities in the winter months.

To address the question of where the proposed center might be located, Greene showed a map of the campus and its environs. They received a lot of feedback on what kind of space was needed. By way of pointing out the need for informal study space he noted that a number of students stated that Starbucks was the best place to study. Meeting places of various sizes are needed, from informal small spaces, seminar rooms to large space for convocations. Another need expressed was the lack of performing space for small productions, dance and movies.

Where the center would be located will determine how it’s used. It needs to be in a central location. The architectural firm studies foot traffic patterns on campus. 75 percent of undergraduate housing is south of Waterman. Students went out and stopped their peers and asked how they arrived at where they were and how they got to their first class. The results of these studies indicated that the facilities were quite dispersed. Greene stated that the campus center will not be a recreational center. The task force recognized the need for a fitness facility and one is being planned. The task force recommended that the Sharpe Refectory should be maintained and modernized.

The task force visited other campuses that had developed successful Student Centers. Planners at the other campuses stressed that it is not possible to address all needs identified with dedicated space and therefore space needs to be flexible. Another important structural principle expressed was the need for transparency. At Princeton one can see from one level to another. The free use of glass walls was also a feature of the Smith center. One can literally see into each room and the visitor can really experience the life of the place. The consulting firm proposed that the Brown campus center be sited along a walkway that would link the lower campus, where most of the dorms are located, with the Pembroke campus. The Center at Smith was designed along a pathway through campus.

Richard Spies, Executive Vice President for Planning, presented some brief comments. He mentioned that the Corporation meetings will take place next week and the administration plans to present the task force recommendations for their endorsement. If the corporation agrees it will be taken to the next level. Spies mentioned that Metcalf is being given consideration as the site for the center. However they recognize that this would cause disruption to the activities of the several departments currently housed there.

Julie Strandberg spoke to the forum about the arts and the campus center. She
reiterated that all parties on the Task Force agreed that a Campus Center is an extension of the academic mission and should provide resources and facilities that primarily support co-curricular activities, with some facilities for extra-curricular activities as well. All parties agreed that The Center should belong to the whole Brown community -- Undergrads, grads, med students, faculty, and staff. She reemphasized that the arts are integral to the plan for academic enrichment and have very strong co-curricular components that should be included in a campus center such as rehearsal spaces, artist studios, music practice rooms, gallery spaces, and informal performance spaces.  These spaces would be available to whole community.  There are many staff members who would love to find a room to practice the piano, for example.  Much of the co-curricular
activities in the arts are inter generational -- bringing together faculty, staff, grad and undergrad students which will help support the mission of having all groups of the Brown community feel that the Center belongs to them. Since there is a desire to have the Center help build community, She also stated that the arts are one of the primary endeavors that can engage the whole community, that are, in fact what help define a community. Their strong presence will, therefore, help achieve one of the primary goals of the Center.

In order to structure the discussion, the Chair solicited suggestions from those attending the forum, leading to a list of topics: Architecture, Process and consultation, Impact on academic programs, Facilities, Library and Location.

Architecture

Professor Wendy Edwards (Visual Arts) initiated the discussion of the architecture of the Center. She expressed the view that the campus is rather gloomy and that any new building should be designed to bring more light. The dichotomy between traditional and modern design on the campus was discussed by the faculty, as was the issue as to whether it should be a new building or a renovation of an older one. These issues have been much discussed during the planning process. Future discussions will elicit the views of group of the potential users of the center with the input of a committee of architects.

Process and Consultation

There ensued a spirited discussion about the planning process for the Center. Professor Kathryn Spoehr (Cognitive & Linguistic Sciences) felt that the faculty should not have had to read about the proposed campus center in the Brown Daily Herald. She called for the report of the task force to be widely circulated. She noted hearing that a donor for the building has been found and stated that it is not traditional at Brown that donors have input on the details of the building for which they are providing financial support. Another faculty member commented that Brown appears to be making decisions on the basis of the first person that writes a check. The money should be put in the bank to build a center that best fits Brown’s needs. In the following discussion it was observed that one reason that Life Science building veered off course was because of opposition by community. Reference was made to the difficulty Harvard has had with the community in its plans for expansion. In answer to these concerns member of the administration present noted that the proposal was being presented to the faculty at the forum to elicit their views.

Impact on Academic Programs

A number of faculty rose to address the impact on the academic programs currently residing in Metcalf - a suggested site for the Center. They argued strongly for a rational plan to minimize disruption of ongoing academic programs of departments and programs. There was general consensus that the first priority was to support the needs of displaced departments. Professor Sheila Blumstein (Cognitive & Linguistic Sciences) observed that Brown has increased the size of the faculty and student body. How will we replace a building like Metcalf, which is a large space filled with labs, offices and classrooms. The Life Science building was a good example of the hazards of planning – all rational planning went out of window when the practical need to have as many wet labs assumed a priority. As a result, some departments were eliminated from the final plan and had to find new accommodations.

Facilities

There was considerable discussion on the need for additional space for various academic endeavors, from classrooms and larger spaces for convocations to smaller seminar and rooms for the faculty to meet one on one with the students. The new center should spur development of new ways of education. Reference was made to the curricular reforms led by Ira Magaziner. There is a serious need for additional media facilities. Brown lags well behind its peer institution in this regard. It was pointed out that students are using the language labs to view movies for their course work. Gallery space should be created to share the artistic expressions of the Brown community. The space could also be used to display the posters that faculty and students used to present their research results at scientific meetings. Space for Emeritus faculty needs space that they could call their own. A wellness center is sorely needed. This is a frequent source of complaints by students and faculty. Members of the faculty, in particular, feel that they have to seek fitness facilities elsewhere. Establish informal eating facilities on campus that would serve both faculty and students. This would provide the opportunities for “chance encounters” between students and faculty. Finally, there was a suggestion to include an aquarium in the lobby of the center.

Location

Although Metcalf is a serious possibility, it is not the only site being considered. In choosing the site the cost of moving the existing department will have to be considered. Construct a new building along the walk was also proposed. This however would affect the Environmental lab as well as adjacent buildings. Some departments will be disrupted no matter where the Center is built. A member of the faculty expressed the view that Metcalf is an old building and not worth renovating. If Metcalf is to be selected for the new Center, a new building should be built.

Libraries

There are plans to update the Rockefeller library. The libraries already function as centers for study and to further the establishments of communities. This needs to be improved upon and expanded. Brown has seriously under invested in its libraries compared to other campuses. It is hard to understand how Brown will maintain its appeal without commitment of considerable sums for capital improvements.

Professor Banchoff concluded the forum by inviting the faculty to contact task force by email with any further comments or ideas. The Forum ended at 5:23 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Fredric J. Silverblatt, M.D.

Secretary of the Faculty Forum