Kent State trees set to be removed
Spectator Staff
Issue date: 10/8/09 Section: Editorial/Opinion
The Council Oak Tree isn't the only symbol standing in the way of the new student center.
The even lesser-known Kent State memorial trees would also have met their fate with the original construction plans for the new student center.
The difference is that the Kent State trees won't be saved by changes to the blueprints.
We agree with Chancellor Brian Levin-Stankevich's decision to not make special arrangements for that memorial.
Again, we feel that - much as in the case of the Council Oak - people should have come forward during open-discussion
sessions.
But we don't feel that the Kent State trees have quite as much significance as the Council Oak, at least not geographically.
Whereas the Council Oak represents a specific spot that holds historical significance, the Kent State trees do not.
We feel remembering those slain at Kent State is important, but it is something that can be remembered elsewhere on campus.
And considering it is not those trees, specifically, that hold significance, we feel they could even be cut down and replaced with new ones instead of spending money to move them.
We do feel that those who paid for the memorial trees should have say in where the trees will be placed and what a good option would be for replacing them.
However, at this point, time and money are far too important. As stated in a previous editorial, the restructuring of the student center because of the Council Oak set the university back far enough in terms of time and funds. Along with that, and also in the case of the Kent State memorial, there is no one to blame except for a community that did not speak up.
The Kent State memorial remembers a tragic event but does not strike quite as deep as the Council Oak.
Therefore, we think the planning of the new center has gone too far to take the memorial trees into consideration.
Either way, though, the university and the community should take something from these dilemmas, and that is that people need to voice their opinions when given the chance.
The even lesser-known Kent State memorial trees would also have met their fate with the original construction plans for the new student center.
The difference is that the Kent State trees won't be saved by changes to the blueprints.
We agree with Chancellor Brian Levin-Stankevich's decision to not make special arrangements for that memorial.
Again, we feel that - much as in the case of the Council Oak - people should have come forward during open-discussion
sessions.
But we don't feel that the Kent State trees have quite as much significance as the Council Oak, at least not geographically.
Whereas the Council Oak represents a specific spot that holds historical significance, the Kent State trees do not.
We feel remembering those slain at Kent State is important, but it is something that can be remembered elsewhere on campus.
And considering it is not those trees, specifically, that hold significance, we feel they could even be cut down and replaced with new ones instead of spending money to move them.
We do feel that those who paid for the memorial trees should have say in where the trees will be placed and what a good option would be for replacing them.
However, at this point, time and money are far too important. As stated in a previous editorial, the restructuring of the student center because of the Council Oak set the university back far enough in terms of time and funds. Along with that, and also in the case of the Kent State memorial, there is no one to blame except for a community that did not speak up.
The Kent State memorial remembers a tragic event but does not strike quite as deep as the Council Oak.
Therefore, we think the planning of the new center has gone too far to take the memorial trees into consideration.
Either way, though, the university and the community should take something from these dilemmas, and that is that people need to voice their opinions when given the chance.
Be the first to comment on this story