The recent Hawkeye P.O.V. on the NAT, in several ways, echoed Dr. Bruno’s personal letter to the Hawkeye. Dr. Bruno was rightly called on that letter by a member of the student body. The authors, in addition, were concerned about irritation shown towards Dr. Bruno by certain members of the community. This ire followed a frustratingly vague, illogical and generally inept presentation by Dr. Bruno’s chosen architect. The authors failed to discuss several other important issues.
The funding question is vital. Dr. Bruno has challenged the community to provide for the renovation and indefinite upkeep of the pool without student contributions. He has simultaneously challenged the community to come up with $64 million in donations to improve the university for the students and faculty. This latter plan excludes the NAT, and thus implies an alternative use for that space, unrelated to the architect’s suggestions.
The P.O.V. authors were upset that comments were made to the effect that, on this issue, the current students, who are of necessity transitory, should not have a deciding vote. Such a stance by the community members might be justifiable if the incumbent administration and the community were actively striving together to keep the pool open. Given this administration’s approach, I agree with the authors that the student vote is very important and offers the best chance to preserve the NAT.
The current student contribution, $25 per semester (2011), seems a very reasonable sum to maintain an Olympic size swimming pool. The students were not complaining. If we only paid for facilities at time of use, very few institutions, including universities, could be kept operational. Availability carries a cost. There are currently a limited number of true Olympic size covered swimming pools in the USA. Most of these are entrusted to, and under the auspices of, universities, parks and big swimming clubs. It is puzzling that the new ULM Administration should be trying to influence the student body to spend a large sum of money to destroy our valuable asset.
Richard O’Donovan
MLP • Nov 12, 2011 at 1:09 am
I’ve gotten my use out of the pool during my 4 yrs at ULM. I hate to see it go, but if it’s not being used by it’s students, then I cannot complain about it. How many students really care about that pool? I mean really? The pool itself was a ghost until the issue of it being closed down came about. I think the only people who really care are alumni. However, I believe the students, not alumni, the students should have a say considering they are paying a large chunk of it. Wasn’t there an option on the table for creating a pool outside on campus? I think that’s a good idea if they were to close down the NAT. It’s something to think about considering hardly anybody uses it. Better to have a pool outside than no pool at all.