Editor:

Something I’ve been hearing a lot lately is that building on some of the Bernard Field Station and preserving the rest would be a good "compromise," an acceptable outcome to the ongoing controversy. This is the argument the Colleges would prefer, as it allows them to spin the Friends’ settlement as somehow meaningful. It ignores, however, a basic fact of ecology: healthy plant and animal communities require large patches of open space to remain viable. Every step up on the food chain requires a larger piece of land on which to forage, and even plants are subject to negative effects from inbreeding depression when their numbers fall too low.

BFS is a very small piece of land, hovering at the border of sustainability. At least three predator species live there; in addition, 100 bird, seven mammal, and four reptile species are known to live on or use the land - all these large animals require as much space as possible. Building on ANY of the Field Station will have devastating impacts on ALL of it, and everything that lives there.

In last week’s article on the issue, President Stanley is quoted as saying, "One takes the opinion of the faculty on academic matters very seriously, but land use is a separate matter." Land use is not a separate matter. The Colleges are unique in that they have plenty of ecologists on hand that have been telling them for years just how devastating it would be to build on the Field Station, both environmentally and educationally. They have merely chosen to ignore the basic scientific fact their professors have been presenting to them.

Building on some of BFS is not a "compromise." To quote from the official Students for the Field Station response to Stanley’s email letter: "Stanley and Quinley state that they have already compromised, by signing an agreement to preserve a portion of the Field Station. They accuse students of creating a "winner-take-all" situation, in which we are unwilling to meet them half-way. Unfortunately, the half-way point, environmentally, passed long ago. 90% of the ecosystem (coastal sage) which comprises the Field Station has been destroyed; the remaining 10% consists of small fragments scattered across a vast area. Developers have already paved over more than half of our open space. To ask us to compromise on these last few fragments is unreasonable.

Sincerely,

Lenard Molina ’02