Disapproval of frivolous '07 class gift

Jessica Gentile Campus Critic

Towards the end of winter break, Class of 2007 students received a letter informing them that a class gift of $12,500 would be spent on replacing the bell above Main building. According to the letter, "It wasn't difficult to select the class gift that we will give to Vassar, which President Fergusson has called 'the gift of the decade.’”

While a thoughtful, symbolic gesture, I can understand that some might see this "gift of the decade" as a frivolous use of such a generous donation. As the first sophomore class to ever provide a gift in the College's history at the request of the donors James and Laura Rosenwald, ’80 and ‘81 respectively, one would think vast student input would be imperative to the decision-making process. A barely-visible bell rung only once a year by juniors during spring convocation hardly constitutes a practical purpose towards serving the student body's educational or recreational needs. Why not spend the money in a more functional item that would more prevalently display Vassar's history and prestige? However, the criticism is not on the choice of gift but rather how the choice was made.

There was never any direct consensus among the majority of the sophomore class in regarding the purchase the new bell. Rather than providing options for students to choose from, the committee simply made the decision on their own. One would think that in order to receive further participation from the sophomore class, there would need to be more of a personal attachment to the item the money was going towards. This could of been ensured by a vote of some sort among the Class of 2007.

While it is true that all sophomores were allowed and encouraged to join the Sophomore Class Gift Committee, many students were unaware that such a committee even existed. Yes, it is true that mass e-mails were sent out informing students of the formation of the committee. However, it is easy to see how these notices could be easily disregarded, considering the number of bulk e-mails students receive everyday. Flyers and public notices were never posted. This ultimate lack of substantial publicity contributed greatly to the sophomore class's insufficient awareness of their option to choose a class gift.

A small committee of approximately 12 to 15 people was eventually formed and convened several times over the past semester. During these meetings, many ideas for the gift and eventual fundraising were brainstormed. Some suggestions that came up during committee meetings included a mascot costume, cubbyholes at the gym, and new chairs for the library. While I'm not necessarily in favor of these proposals in place of a bell, these ideas should have at least been made publicly known amongst the sophomore class, perhaps by tabling in the College Center or another mass e-mail asking for greater feedback and student input.

According to Laura Weyl ’07, Co-Chairperson of the Sophomore Class Gift Committee, these ideas were never shared because of fears that it would get too complicated and argumentative to have rounds of narrowing down all the different possibilities. Therefore, Weyl claims, a vote was never taken based on the premise that "a lot of people would refuse to give [donations for the gift] if their ideas weren't chosen.”

While there might be some validity to this theory, it seems a lot more probable that donations would be increased if students were allowed to have a greater say in how their money was being used. The increase in personal investment would equate to an increase in financial investment as well. I highly doubt that someone would oppose donating to their class simply because their idea wasn't chosen. Just because they may not completely support the chosen gift doesn't imply that they wouldn’t support their class.

After all, remember last year's senior gift debacle. The unpopular choice of wireless internet was chosen with little input from the senior class. As a result, efforts to generate donations proved tougher than expected. We can only hope for greater awareness and participation in the choosing of future class gifts, which means greater input from both the students and administration involved.