Butler's column on Duke admins misses mark

I often find Kristin Butler's columns thoroughly researched and intellectually stimulating. But such was not the case in her most recent column ("Integrating the Allen Building," May 24). It seems that Butler has traded the careful research characteristic of her previous columns for the venom and overstatements evident in this one.

Let's begin with the first paragraph, which Butler ends by labeling the Duke-Durham relationship as "deeply dysfunctional." That's news to me, and I imagine news to many others who have had genuine interactions with citizens of Durham, rather than merely basing opinions off of sensationalized media reports.

Butler then, in an unnecessarily snide way, suggests that the University bribed Durham officials $2 million for municipal considerations that should have been free. I'm not sure if Butler was trying to push the envelope, or simply trying to be funny, but neither worked. Apparently administrators also "sold out" future students' needs by agreeing to unreasonable limits on retail space for the new Central Campus. If she wants to disagree with administrators' decisions, so be it. But she has oversimplified complicated situations and rendered harsh, and often unfair, judgments.

This letter would be incomplete without mentioning Butler's oh-so-dramatic plea that "someone, somewhere" in the Brodhead administration might "someday" care about students' needs and rights. Right. The $300-million Financial Aid Initiative and $30-million Duke Engage program are further signs of the Brodhead administration's total negligence of the financial and service-learning needs of Duke's students.

I've been told that Kristin Butler takes great pride in her columns, and often for good reason. But here's hoping that in the future she won't trade articulate analysis for vitriolic overstatements.

Nate Jones

Trinity '09