Building dissent

It sounds like an exciting idea — a $50-million library and cutting-edge campus design studio, itself designed by none other than edgy Walt Disney Concert Hall architect Frank Gehry.

But if you ask many of those currently studying at the Art Center College of Design in Pasadena, the proposed Design Research Center is a bad omen for their own future and that of the school.

At a campus forum on June 10, Art Center President Richard Koshalek and top school administrators made a concerted effort to address ongoing student concerns that attention to the Gehry project and various off-campus initiatives is leaving their educational experience — which now comes with a price tag of roughly $135,000 for a three-year undergraduate degree — wanting.

During that event, which appeared to draw about 10 percent of the school’s nearly 1,500 students, and a subsequent conversation with the Pasadena Weekly, Koshalek and others emphasized that tuition funds were in no way being used for either the Design Research Center or activities the school hosts off campus, including a March conference in Spain.

Instead, he said, proceeds from a $150 million fundraising campaign will be divided among capital projects, the school’s endowment and scholarships. At the end of the campaign there will be a $60 million endowment for scholarships, said Koshalek, who since coming to Art Center in 1999 from the LA Museum of Contemporary Art has raised more money for the school than in all of its previous seven decades.

Nonetheless, many students — all of whom will be long gone from Art Center before completion of the Gehry project — remain troubled by perceived school priorities and have found support from alumni and others working in design fields.

Online petitions and a Future of Art Center blog are calling on the school’s Board of Trustees, expected to discuss the extension of Koshalek’s contract during a meeting today, to halt plans for the Design Research Center and focus fundraising efforts on defraying the cost of an Art Center education, which has climbed about five percent annually for several years.

The grassroots movement calling for reform at Art Center began with a blog post by industrial design student Nathan Cooke, who complained following the recent Serious Play design conference in May that school leadership was two-faced when it came to the environment: While conference attendees had access to recycling bins and renewable plates and silverware, recycling opportunities remained limited on campus and the cafeteria continues to offer only plastic forks and Styrofoam plates.

Cooke suggested using some of the money set aside for the Gehry building to reform school eco-policy. The next day, the school’s chief academic officer quit for unstated reasons. Soon more than 800 people (many remain anonymous) had attached their own comments to Cooke’s, leading to the creation of a spinoff blog.

By the time of the student forum, Koshalek was defending school spending priorities and trying to allay fears that recent declines in enrollment coupled with rising tuition costs are excluding talent from the student body.

Koshalek and his staff offer many answers: that the Gehry project hasn’t interfered with the school’s education budget but will ultimately serve educational purposes; that the many public initiatives programs increase Art Center’s clout and competitiveness on the world stage; that most of student tuition pays faculty salaries; that enrollment is still competitive; and that recycling bins are on the way.

But they have yet to satisfy students such as illustration major Lee Bolton, whose many specific questions about the way the school spends its money stem from a general sense that administrators would rather spend to erect buildings than shape young minds.

“Somewhere along the line they lost sight of what they were doing and got consumed by this building project. There’s something direly wrong with the way things are structured here,” he said.