This letter is in response to the ISU Daily Editorial from April 6. Your editorial mistakenly assumed that the loss of two historic trees is required for the new dorm. Until now, we’ve all been misled by the administration that removal of the trees is necessary. The issue is not an either–or choice. The new dormitory could be constructed on this site while maintaining the trees. Of course enrollment has increased, we need new dorms and this location was identified on the 1991 Campus Master Plan for future housing. Those are empty excuses being used to distract us all from the real reason the trees are being removed.

Like you, I thought all those were valid excuses too, until I met with the director of the Department of Residence, Pete Englin, on April 9. He explained that the upper administration is responsible for the site plan decisions. They valued the building layout and a “contiguous courtyard” as more important to the design of the building than saving either of the trees. They knew these trees existed and their history could have required the architect to build around them. But Englin said they had other priorities. He also said the decision makers recognize that the outdoor courtyard will be unusable from October to March every year due to winter winds and drifting. Are you thinking like I am? October to March is nearly the entire academic year.

You may not study and value trees like I do. I understand and respect that. But you love Iowa State — just like I do. The removal of these trees undermines the legacy and history of our university. These trees were planted shortly after Abraham Lincoln was president and signed the Morrill Act in 1862. In September of the same year, the state of Iowa was the first to accept these terms, which made what is now Iowa State University the first land grant institution in this nation. These trees are healthy! Iowa State’s certified arborist assessed them last year.

Why is the administration creating a dorm for us with a courtyard it knows will be largely unusable and telling us the first concern is student well-being? And why is it deciding this for us while at the same time teaching us in our coursework how to use sustainable building practices and how to integrate education and the environment. There is a disconnect here of epic proportions, and it’s unacceptable.