As the banners lining the walk to Millett Hall catch the breeze as nothing more than increasingly distant memories of Miami University's 200th birthday and the Bicentennial celebrations come to an end, so too does my trilogy of columns on major issues I see facing the university. The first column ("Miami must figure out what type of Miami we want to be," Jan. 16) explored our university's position vis-à-vis comparable universities; the second dove into the problem of class sizes ("Examination of class size raises question of direction," Feb. 10). This final column centers on the concept of value-added.

In times of an economic crunch, questions of worth and value come up in every sector of the university. Decisions such as the downsizing of staff and ending WMUB operation are extremely difficult and important, however, I find there is one area that seems Teflon amidst the tightening of department budgets, and that is the Bicentennial Student Center (BSC). I don't think anyone can deny the benefits of the BSC if fully realized-while the addition of even more places to eat on campus seems a little silly, having hundreds of student organization offices within walking distance of each other would be really helpful toward with some trans-organization coordination. Construction has been wisely postponed, but the talk has not. It's a troubling feeling that washes over me when I see things like the Senior Legacy Committee's "sneak peak" video preview for the BSC or read about ASG President Mike Scott's state of the student address in which we're constantly reminded students have identified that (surprise) they would love a brand new building. We all know the BSC would be an enormously positive addition to the university and one that would improve student life.

The question, however, is one of strategic vision and tactical choices. While the BSC is meant to be 100 percent for students, it is not 100 percent about students because it is meant to be a presentable, physical reminder of what giving back to the university can accomplish. Some see it as a way to spur more alumni donations in the future, which it may very well be successful at accomplishing. The center is supposed to be part of a larger cultivation of a new type of student that will find alternatives to acting ridiculous uptown on weekend nights, and-in combination with the new sophomore living requirement-will find an enriching value to life on campus. It's impossible to argue against these goals because we all realize they have merit.

However, at a time when we are seriously tightening our belts and scraping for cash, it seems like our hopes and aspirations for this new building should be postponed as well. First, if these truths about the need for a student center are self-evident, then are we so worried that we will simply forget about the project if we table the talk for a couple years and keep it in the backs of our mind as something that we know we'll be able to accomplish when times are better? Second, philanthropic donations are down across the board due to the state of the economy; if we are to gain any money, wouldn't it be better to entice donors with the thought of supporting their departments to save faculty positions and ensure new faculty searches aren't completely frozen or delayed? Third, I think it's important to view the BSC and the fundraising effort as unique in recent Miami experience.

While comparisons have been made between the BSC debate and that of the Recreational Sports Center in the early 1990s, a quick search of The Student archives paints the RSC discussion with a different brush. Plans for funding the RSC relied upon a large donor to jumpstart the project because the university (the students) was expected to bear the financial cost ("Rec center plans on hold in wake of budget crunch," August 28, 1992)-the BSC's funding is based primarily on external donations. The RSC debate coincided with other vicious university debates, including the addition of a plus/minus GPA calculation and shake-ups with the board of trustees-the BSC largely stands out alone against a backdrop of looming budget concern. The RSC's construction also corresponded with the implementation of new I.D. cards with magnetic strips; as Kathy Qualls of the bursar's office put it over a decade ago, "The new rec center was the driving force behind the new system (of I.D. cards)" ("Miami greets the new year with innovations, renovations," Aug. 30, 1994)-the BSC will not coincide with the same type of sweeping technology upgrade. Finally, the REC was meant as a community facility, while the student center is inherently only for students.

Stronger parallels, however, do exist in the rhetoric of criticism: "Since when is the future of any respectable university and its students built on swimming pools, weight and aerobic rooms, racquetball courts and climbing walls," our editorial board wrote in 1992 ("Trustees ignore reason, rec center returns," Sept. 21, 1992.). Obviously, the REC worked out for the best, and there's no reason to think in the future the BSC wouldn't turn out the same way, but there should be no sense of urgency in raising money for this specific project when donors should be encouraged to remember the academic underpinnings of the university.

If physical representations of donations are what help to drive gifts to the university, then let us bring in money to name more professorships, offices or the bricks of our already-built academic buildings. Let us remind alumni of their classroom experiences and the opportunities their departments and faculty provided for them to outperform other undergraduates around the country. Mustn't our alumni agree with us that academic performance is a greater asset and quality of attraction than a student center? If we are able to focus our efforts on maturing academically prior toward maturing through construction, then the addition of the student center in future years should pose no problem.