CURRENTLY, the University’s financial situation seems as tenuous as ever given the state of the nation’s economy. As of August 31, fundraising for the College and Graduate School of Arts & Sciences is lagging behind fundraising for The Virginia Athletics Foundation, and not even the Barber twins seem to be the University’s best hope to spur the momentum of The Campaign for the University of Virginia during this period of fiscal uncertainty.
So how is the University going to weather this severe economic storm? Surely we must be shifting our attention towards funding the most important resources and programs at the University, ignoring — at least temporarily — the superfluous and unnecessary projects that students, faculty and administrators can live without. So what does the Board of Visitors count as superfluous? According to recent decisions made in the wake of potential state budget cuts, superfluity characterizes such programs as salary increases for University faculty and staff and funding for new educational and scientific research equipment. And what doesn’t count as superfluous? New window sashes.
That’s right. Despite the threat of state budget cuts ranging anywhere from $7.6 million to $22.8 million, the University is continuing with plans to renovate all 104 Lawn and Range rooms to make them appear more historically accurate, according to a recent Richmond Times-Dispatch article by staff writer Carlos Santos. Changes include replacing the mantels on the fireplace as well as the sashes on the windows “with more historically accurate designs,” writes Santos. Damaged pine floorboards are also being replaced at a cost of $245 per floorboard. That means that when the University’s academic program crumbles due to a lack of economic resources, at least an intentionally antiquated Academical Village will make it look like students are actually still learning something.
According to University Senior Historic Preservation Planner Brian Hogg, the Lawn room renovations have already been completed, and the Range rooms are currently the target of the same revisions. He explained in an e-mail, “The work is more than cosmetic,” citing the need to reinforce the bearing capacity of the joists as an example. This kind of renovation is obviously a necessary one, and the money spent to complete it is therefore a justifiable expense. However, Hogg also cited the need to return “the delicate profiles and proportions of Jefferson’s windows” by replacing the window sashes as an example of another necessary renovation to maintain the “historic character” of the buildings.
Among the goals of the renovation project, then, are both maintaining the integrity of the buildings —an acceptable undertaking worth the cost — and “the goal of having any recreated elements match as closely as possible the original features which they replicated,” according to Hogg. Hogg also explained that the money used to complete these changes was raised explicitly for this purpose.
The problem with restoring these rooms to supposedly seem more historically accurate has to do with more than just cost. This blind commitment to the idea of authenticity, this willingness to spend money to buy new materials to make these rooms appear older is almost laughable. Casey Raymond, a Lawn resident and a fourth-year in the College, said, “It does not matter that much to me if the floorboard and curtains are authentic.”
Why is it so important to paint an artificially historic veneer over Lawn rooms that students continue to live in today? It is as if new, intentionally unwaxed pine flooring will somehow transport visitors and residents back almost two hundred years, making them feel as if they were truly standing in the original Academical Village, the Village that existed when segregation and gender discrimination were openly endorsed. What a feeling.
The University’s ridiculous obsession with tradition and authenticity, not to mention its worship of Thomas Jefferson, is all too evident in its endorsement of Lawn and Range renovations. Those who make these decisions and those who donate money to such a cause are sending a clear message that what matters most at an institution of higher education is not the abundance of resources available to students or the support offered to its faculty and staff. Instead, what matters most is an adherence to some ambiguous concept of tradition and to the belief that appearance says it all.
Spending so much money to make the Academical Village seem more authentic is superficiality at its best. “The idea of preservation in itself can be problematic,” Raymond said. “By preventing the room from changing, the authenticity that we boast about is compromised.”
Given access to more academic resources, students have the potential to accomplish anything. What can possibly be accomplished by pinewood flooring and window sashes?
Amelia Meyer’s column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at a.meyer@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 4 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
