A Reminder of the Council Oak Tree is still not the Council Oak
Randy Jones
Issue date: 10/8/09 Section: Letters
There is no question that any decision regarding the Council Oak bears a cost to our community. On one hand, a decision to change plans for the new Davies Center will cost time and money. On the other hand, a decision to remove the Oak constitutes a direct threat to myriad diverse interests within our community that deserve our full attention and respect. True, each of us could have acted upon an impulse to properly address the situation much earlier, and that impulse would have prevented temporal and financial inconvenience.
But we didn't. And in that sense, we all failed. Fortunately, our short-term failures have not yet resulted in long-term irreversible consequences. We can still fix the problem.
For that reason, I applaud the chancellor and all of the people on this campus who have chosen to take a stand, not based upon strict pragmatism, but instead based upon a belief in the power of positive symbols and a respect for the ethical and spiritual commitments made by those who preceded us.
A reminder of a tree is not a tree. Your editorial suggests that we can memorialize the promise and the power of the Council Oak, and thus serve the demands of propriety. I disagree. I think the Oak can only play its role in our community as a living, growing thing, imbued with a power that was not given lightly and cannot be taken away without a cost greater than that of time and money.
You call for sensitivity on the part of the administration when considering its options regarding the Council Oak. I think you are suffering from myopia. There are more viewpoints to consider than just those of the current students on this campus, and even then, students' viewpoints have a richness and a diversity that we must respect but you seem to ignore.
According to your argument, students will bear the cost of a new plan that provides for protecting the Council Oak. I am not sure about that, but I am sure that each of us will bear the real cost of removing the Oak and carrying on as planned because we will have chosen to ignore the intrinsic power the Oak possesses. That choice is wrong and seems fraught with peril.
Finally, your suggestion that because the Oak is not 'original' and is therefore somehow inauthentic is pure sophistry. Just because the current Council Oak is not the same tree that once stood there doesn't mean it doesn't have the same power and significance that the first Council Oak had. In fact, the very fact that this tree survived when others didn't should tell you something - this tree is special in a way that the others were not. Its power is inherent.
But we didn't. And in that sense, we all failed. Fortunately, our short-term failures have not yet resulted in long-term irreversible consequences. We can still fix the problem.
For that reason, I applaud the chancellor and all of the people on this campus who have chosen to take a stand, not based upon strict pragmatism, but instead based upon a belief in the power of positive symbols and a respect for the ethical and spiritual commitments made by those who preceded us.
A reminder of a tree is not a tree. Your editorial suggests that we can memorialize the promise and the power of the Council Oak, and thus serve the demands of propriety. I disagree. I think the Oak can only play its role in our community as a living, growing thing, imbued with a power that was not given lightly and cannot be taken away without a cost greater than that of time and money.
You call for sensitivity on the part of the administration when considering its options regarding the Council Oak. I think you are suffering from myopia. There are more viewpoints to consider than just those of the current students on this campus, and even then, students' viewpoints have a richness and a diversity that we must respect but you seem to ignore.
According to your argument, students will bear the cost of a new plan that provides for protecting the Council Oak. I am not sure about that, but I am sure that each of us will bear the real cost of removing the Oak and carrying on as planned because we will have chosen to ignore the intrinsic power the Oak possesses. That choice is wrong and seems fraught with peril.
Finally, your suggestion that because the Oak is not 'original' and is therefore somehow inauthentic is pure sophistry. Just because the current Council Oak is not the same tree that once stood there doesn't mean it doesn't have the same power and significance that the first Council Oak had. In fact, the very fact that this tree survived when others didn't should tell you something - this tree is special in a way that the others were not. Its power is inherent.
Be the first to comment on this story