Yet again, the Keck Graduate Institute has won an undeserved victory thanks to confused Claremont Colleges students who have no real sense of priorities. On Tuesday, the ASPC Senate endorsed a badly misguided and horribly flawed statement of their position on the development of the Bernard Field Station (BFS).

While Senate should be commended for taking a stand against development of the BFS, they make a mistake in attempting to separate the issues of KGI and the BFS. The position makes several strong claims about the inappropriateness of building on the BFS, only to blow it all in the penultimate sentence: "ASPC does not take a stance on whether or not KGI should exist at all." Despite the fact that the position earlier states that, "ASPC opposes the use of the Bernard Field Station as a site for the Keck Graduate Institute," the ASPC seems to think that they can take a stand on development of the BFS while ignoring the issue of KGI altogether.

The reasoning behind this decision to ignore the issue of KGI is fascinating, as well as wrong. In the Senate meeting on January 30, Senate decided that they would declare their neutrality on KGI. The logic was that KGI is already in operation (at a temporary location on Arrow Highway) and opposing its existence would be a waste of time. They seemed to be saying, "KGI is here to stay, so we need not weaken our other arguments about the BFS by bringing KGI into question." In fact, this is exactly what ASPC President Brian Andrews said when he voted that mixing the two issues would "dilute the message."

By not opposing KGI because its existence is inevitable, the Senate implies that they can oppose the development of the BFS because such development is not inevitable. This is quite problematic. I fail to see many ways for the college students and residents of Claremont to prevent the development of the BFS. (An agreement has already been reached that allows construction on the BFS.

The original intent of the gift of the land to the colleges specifies that the land is to be used for a new educational institution.) A very strong argument can be made that the development of the BFS is just as likely as the continued growth of KGI. Thus, Senate’s basis for their declared neutrality on KGI is unfounded, to say the least. This is not to say, though, that Senate should have remained neutral on both points, if both points are inevitable.

Everybody knows the shortcomings of KGI (although North Campus Senator Grayson Schaffer is the only Senator who seemed to think these issues were important), so it makes little sense for Senate to bother proposing alternatives for KGI (the position implies that Senate would be okay with KGI being built on the CUC golf course or in the former quarry). When Senate says they would be okay with KGI in other locations, Senate forfeits the neutrality which they claim.

Not only is neutrality on the issue of the expansion of KGI unnecessary, it is also non-existent. Before Senate trips itself into more problems such as this, Senate needs to oppose both the development of the BFS and the continued growth of KGI. A much better resolution for Senate to make would be: "The ASPC opposes the construction of the Keck Graduate Institute on the Bernard Field Station. We believe there are large problems with this situation and encourage a search for alternatives to the development of both KGI and the BFS."

Senate meets in the Smith Campus Center every Tuesday at 11:15, right next to the Fireplace Lounge. All observers are welcome.