To the Editor:
The erstwhile writer’s perspective in yesterday’s Herald op-ed (“Weinstein ’17: Brown decides to chase its ‘peers,’” Oct. 12) is appreciated but fails to convince of the faults of a financial prescription that focuses on enhancing Brown’s relatively meager endowment, undertaking construction initiatives that will advance Brown’s academic and social infrastructure and expand its research resources to provide not only necessary societal advancements but also to generate funding that would not otherwise be available.
It is not a matter of chasing Brown’s “peer institutions” as much as facing the fiscal realities of sustaining a prominent university in order to allow it to continue its role as, primarily, an undergraduate institution — one needing to provide itself with those facilities enabling it to maintain its position as one of the more attractive universities to attend, at which to teach and at which to administer. Comparisons within an applicable cohort are always necessary to establish standards that have been proven to be effective in establishing functioning and successful institutions. Provost Richard Locke’s P’17 prescription is sound and necessary to allow Brown to maintain its identity as an undergraduate-focused university (not college) that possesses the wherewithal to provide educations that can assure meaningful undergraduate and graduate experiences.
Kevin A. Seaman ’69