The Advocate

Scaffolding, Ads Remain
Despite Expired Deadline

Andrew Kennis
The presence of heavy scaffolding on the front of the Graduate Center building, continues to evoke ire from much of the student body.

For some the main problem is that the scaffolding’s ad-draped presence is simply an eyesore. “It’s ugly, it pisses me off,” said Larry Bomback, 21, a student in the Music department. “It doesn’t bother me that the ads are there, as long as once the scaffolding is removed, so are the ads.”

However, for others the presence of ads on the scaffolding pushes the controversy beyond aesthetics and provokes broader questions of the “corporatization of the university.”

According to GC administration officials, the advertising helps to finance much-needed building repairs, which total an estimated $950,000. Most of that sum was provided by the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York, while the difference was covered by the $295,800 generated from ad revenues since August 2003.
Provost and Senior Vice President Dr. William P. Kelly considers the ads symbolic of the crisis that public education is currently experiencing. But some students aren’t convinced.

Kat Griefen, a student in the Art History department, said “whenever there is corporate involvement in public education, it is potentially bad. In the case of art and education, there are other purposes outside the goal of learning, such as selling cars and cigarettes to turn a profit, which show how interests can interfere with achieving what the real goals of education should be.” Indeed, early advocates of public education such as John Dewey certainly never envisioned private businesses as having a role to play in financing public schools.

In the October 2003 issue of The Advocate, contributing writer Elizabeth Primamore wrote of the “irony of an institution as critical of the vagaries of unrestrained capitalism as the Graduate Center being financed by a bank notorious for its redlining policies is too striking to be left unsaid.” Primamore was referring to a Citibank ad which has since been replaced, but students have also expressed objections to the current advertisers.

The Hummer is a civilian vehicle based directly on a military model. AM General developed the High-Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) from 1979-1983 as part of a competitive bid to develop formidable transportation for the US army. The model has been used by the army for so long that it has become emblematic of the the military, often appearing in discussions over whether Hummers in Iraq are equipped with appropriate armor or not. In 1999, AM General sold the name and distribution rights for the Hummer to General Motors, which now distributes them to consumers as a gas-guzzling symbol of pro-military enthusiasm.

A second ad touts Espirit, a brand name fashion line derived from sweatshop and otherwise exploitative labor conditions. Additionally, the Espirit advertisements contain images that many feel contribute to the mental and physical health crisis of adolescent girls, such as anorexia and bulimia.

Many feel that the removal of the scaffolding itself is simply long overdue. “It’s embarrassing,” said Alex, 34, of the Hispanic and Luso-Brazilian Literatures and Languages department. “I don’t know why they have had it here for so long. It’s been here, what, 5 years? 3 years?”

In fact, the scaffolding was erected in March 2001, and was scheduled for removal in the spring of 2004, an estimate given by Michael Mahoney, Director of Facilities and Campus Planning, quoted in an earlier story in The Advocate.

The Administration’s Perspective

Provost Kelly is more concerned with the poor gas mileage that Hummers have and its related impact on the environment than its relation to the military-industrial complex. He finds such a relation indirect and added, “I think differentiating between these ads is a level of moral precision that eludes me.” The Espirit ad, however, has now been removed from the northeast corner of 34th street and 5th Avenue.

Regarding the scaffolding’s extended tenure on the GC façade, Provost Kelly explained to The Advocate that the scaffolding remains because of a new problem discovered with the building’s infrastructure. “Mold was discovered on the building that for aesthetic reasons ought to be cleaned and taken off. It was asked of us whether before we take the scaffolding down, if we wanted to clean the building up. My own preference is to get the building clean.”

Adding to the reasons for the delay, President Frances Horowitz, writing in the administration bulletin Centerline (No. 45, September 2004), wrote that “Weather conditions periodically have led to a temporary stoppage of the restoration process” and that “because our building has landmark status . . . procedures had to go through sometimes lengthy approval processes by the Landmark Commission.”

Nevertheless, delays have raised a skeptical eye amongst students, who speculate about the true motives behind the continued presence of the scaffolding. In this vein, Political Science student Jan Polivka, 27, said “I come from Berlin and they did the same thing, but they had it over a year and the repairs only took six months. But they kept the scaffolding out, many felt, to keep receiving the corporate ad revenues that they also put up.” Polivka echoed the suspicions of many other students when he noted that he hadn’t seen anyone doing work on the building and was thus “skeptical” about the Administration’s claims. Meanwhile, a security guard who asked that he not be identified said that he had not seen any work done on the building recently. “I think that some work was done on the façade, but that was a long time ago,” he noted.

In her Centerline memo, President Horowitz expressed further uncertainty about the removal of the scaffolding. “We do not presently know but are estimating perhaps in December or early in 2005.” As long as the scaffolding continues to be present, however, student concerns about its aesthetic ugliness and moral objections over the involvement of corporations in the financing of public education are sure to be raised. Many students suggest that further action may be necessary if the latest estimate for removal is not met.

Andrew Kennis is a student in the PhD program in Political Science.