As a GTF in the English Department, I teach my freshmen composition students the skills of critical reading and argumentative writing. One of the cores of our curriculum is the importance of evaluating an argument based on the validity of its reasons. Accepting or rejecting a conclusion without a strict evaluation of the reasoning leads to many negative outcomes – the least of which are uncritical debate, ignorance, and blind acceptance. In debating the issue of Westmoreland and its possible sale, it makes sense to look at the reasons for selling and evaluate their validity before coming to a conclusion.
The reasons, of course, keep changing. On Oct. 20, the reasons were: It’s too far from campus (a blatant lie – it’s less than three miles from campus and easily accessible by bike/footpath/direct bus lines), maintenance issues (these were never revealed and maintenance staff seems unaware of any problems when questioned by tenants), not enough “families” (discrimination anyone?) and the need to “make strategic land acquisitions” that we were repeatedly assured are completely unrelated to a new basketball arena (methinks the administration doth protest too much). Next, the reasons were “because we need new dorms.” Am I mistaken, or is the huge construction project taking place across from the rec center not the future home of the Living Learning Center? The University seemed to pay for that construction just fine without selling out its non-traditional/international/low-income students. Now, Frohnmayer and his band of cronies in Johnson Hall insist that the money will be used to pay off debt owed to the OUS.
As a tenant of Westmoreland, a non-traditional graduate student and an underpaid GTF, I obviously have a vested interest in the issue. If this sale goes through I will have to somehow, on a measly $820 per month net income, find a way to come up with an extra $250 or so per month to pay for the increase in rent that will ensue even if I am one of the lucky few to get into Spencer View (which is highly unlikely since my partner and I do not have children and are therefore not a “family” in the eyes of the University administration). Now, to the people who hang out in Johnson Hall that $250 may be pocket change, but for me that’s food and car payment. What does this mean to the University? Obviously, nothing. However, it might mean something to my students, who will have an instructor who can’t spend time on curriculum and lesson planning because she has to work an extra 20 hours a week outside of her teaching and course work to prevent homelessness.
As far as funds being allocated to “mitigation” (paying us off?) the University has done absolutely nothing. As a tenant I received an online survey asking me where I want to move – a survey that I filled out and then received a new copy of, as if the first had never existed. This does nothing to “mitigate” the damage this move will have on my educational and financial future.
President Frohnmayer has stated that he hopes to invest in a “land bank” close to campus on Franklin in order to further his individual legacy. If Westmoreland is sold, you can bet that the tenants will leave him a legacy, and it will not be the one he wants. For a University that claims to pride itself on its dedication to diversity, it makes no sense that the administration is so dead set on destroying the University’s best example of diversity: A neighborhood of students from different nations, with different languages, different incomes, different colors of skin, different cultures – all with the goal of getting a good education through a public institution. After all, the University is a public school last I checked – not a private revenue-based corporation. At the last meeting of the OUS state board, I believe Frohnmayer made a proposal: “If you don’t trust my judgment feel free to fire me.” Consider it done.
Darlene Hampton is a GTF in the University Department of English.