Last month, we wrote an editorial stating we did not support the University paying additional property taxes, or drastically increasing its voluntary payments, to Providence. In that editorial, we argued that doing so could strain financial aid, compromise Brown's ability to hire and retain top-notch faculty and marginalize Brown's contribution to Providence's knowledge economy. Given the recent discussions on campus and within these pages, we feel it is necessary to once more enter this debate.
We appreciate the enthusiasm that Brown for Providence has brought to the discussions. That said, while we believe that the University should moderately increase its payments, we substantively disagree with the group's proposal for the University, and take issue with a few specific persistent assertions.
We are particularly concerned with the argument, furthered by Tim Syme GS in an op-ed column earlier this month, that "Brown's fundraising efforts appear to be focused on high-status building projects" as opposed to prioritizing the "regeneration of Providence." This kind of misinformation derails nuanced debate. Many sizable donations are earmarked for specific projects, like the Perry and Marty Granoff Center for the Creative Arts, and cannot be diverted for any other use.
To say that the University has chosen luxurious expansion over supporting a struggling city ignores this reality. Between the money earmarked by donors for specific functions, restrictions on spending funds from the endowment and strong dedication to financial aid and faculty salaries, the University has far less financial flexibility than some assert. Furthermore, it is particularly problematic that The Herald would allow an opinions column to perpetuate and legitimize this fallacy.
In the Janus Forum debate on this issue, Brown for Providence member Ben Wofford '14.5 stated that the University's $2 million increase in payments to the city was "pixie dust," and that Brown plays "Goliath" in its relationship to Providence, labeled by Wofford "David with two broken ankles." Syme, Wofford and others from Brown for Providence have inappropriately oversimplified the issue, pitting the struggling city against an unfeeling, callous University. But to cast Brown as Goliath - when our community is filled with students and families struggling to fund Brown educations and staff relying on the University for their livelihoods - is completely disingenuous.
Brown needs to continue to thrive and attract top-notch faculty and students, in order to drive the knowledge economy so crucial to this city's economic success. If the University takes a considerable financial hit, Providence will suffer for it in the long run. It is short-sighted economic thinking to ignore the fact that Brown is the second-largest employer in Providence and is a key figure in the long-term success of this city and state. While extracting money from Brown might seem extremely attractive in terms of temporary relief, it is an unsustainable and dangerous long-term plan.
We agree with Syme and Brown for Providence that University administrators should take pay cuts and return much of that money to Providence. Yet we cannot support a plan that would put even more demands on middle- and working-class families at Brown and limit the University's ability to help the city of Providence in more systemic, sustainable ways. We hope that as the campus dialogue about these issues continues, it avoids the oversimplifications and fallacies that have plagued it to date.
Editorials are written by The Herald's editorial page board. Send comments to editorials@browndailyherald.com.
