Other Countries Saved

On Y2K Because U.S. Spent

To the editors:

The Jan. 12 editorial dissent by Robin S. Lee ("Too Much Money, Too Late") is as inaccurate as it is self-contradictory. It is strange that Lee laments the U.S. efforts as too late at the same time he praises "developed nations such as Italy" for starting late and doing little to prepare. It is unclear whether he would have preferred us to follow Italy's path, and do very little very late, or to take his own advice and begin preparing two decades ago.

Lee misses an important point on Italy and other nations. Italy was able to "spend far less than the U.S.," and still "[do] just fine," precisely because the U.S. spent so much. As with all developments in technology, those who copy benefit more than those who create. The United States and a handful of other countries absorbed all of the costs of identifying and testing problems before Italy even considered Y2K. Countries like Italy were able to get a free ride by using the knowledge we had already spent so much to acquire. In the words of a White House Y2K official with whom I spoke, they did exactly what Lee "criticizes the United States for doing. They waited."

Lee's position is as alarmist as the right-wing black helicopter crowd's, They doubtlessly agree that the government spent "money just to make sure its very own weaponry wouldn't accidentally launch." There was never any concern among those knowledgible that our missiles, nuclear or otherwise, would launch because of Y2K. A missile requires manual, human action in order to be launched.

Lee incorrectly assumes that there was a broad consensus among educated people 20 years ago that Y2K would be a problem. If that were the case, why would multi-billion dollar corporations as diverse as software companies, financial services and oil giants--all of which are generally pretty good at looking after their own interests--have continued to invest in technology that was plagued, in Lee's words, by "programming ineptitude?" "For those of use who like to keep count" writes Lee, "that's $600 billion" spent on Y2K. I do like to keep count. And so does the U.S. government. The Y2K White House official told me that the correct number was $200 billion.

It seems that Lee has a Y2K bug of his own: gullibility to ultra right-wing propaganda.

Guy L. Smith '01

Feb. 12, 2000

Construction Unnecessary, May Harm Dumbarton Oaks

To the editors:

I read with interest The Crimson article ("Construction May Endanger Dumbarton Oaks Gardens," News, Jan. 10) regarding Harvard's plan to build an underground library beneath the garden of Dumbarton Oaks in Washington, DC. It was a fairly comprehensive article; however, it failed to make any mention of the fact that an alternative site for such a building exists, within the property holdings of Dumbarton Oaks, which would in no way disrupt the highly cherished garden designed by Beatrix Farrand.

When asked why this site was not considered, the director's answer is that there must be contiguity between the scholars and their sources and that a campus arrangement is unacceptable and would be a "programmatic liability." By arguing that scholars, objects and books must be contiguous, he creates a need for an immediately adjacent library that does not exist. Few scholars worldwide have such an ideal arrangement. And regardless, who wouldn't prefer to walk through a garden to consult their sources in an above ground library with natural light?

Despite assurances that the garden will be restored exactly as it is today, no guarantees can be given. It is false optimism to assume that the North Vista as a roof garden, which is what it will be, can ever have the same character or viability as it does today.

Disturbance to the garden will extend far beyond the footprint of the building as shown on the elegant concept drawings. Furthermore, underground buildings are notoriously high maintenance. We have only to observe the "state-of-the-art" Sackler Museum here in Washington, whose handsome Enid Haupt garden is constantly being dug up to repair leaks to the roof. There are other numerous examples of failed underground buildings.

We do not know whether the Fire Marshal will insist that a wide fire-engine access lane be cut through the garden. He also may require fire exits leading directly into the garden, since the existing drawings now show that the only egress is through tunnels to the main building. These questions cannot be answered until construction drawings are completed.

The threats to the garden subject to such an undertaking are enormous and unpredictable. It is interesting to note that while it is unlikely a proposal to tear down a wing of the house would ever be considered, gardens are seen as more dispensable.

Finally, I believe that Mildred W. Bliss had the belief when she handed over, and richly endowed, Dumbarton Oaks to Harvard that it would be a trustworthy steward of her beloved garden. Who is to say how she would weigh potential damage and changes to her garden against the needs and interests of scholarly research? I, for one, think she would consider it a betrayal of her trust in Harvard.

It is ironic that an institution that was established in part for the study of garden scholarship and as the repository of Bliss' unique collection of rare horticultural and historic garden books should be involved in the possible destruction of one of the country's finest gardens.

President Neil L. Rudenstine must consider carefully the alternative options for this expansion before embarking on a course that endangers a valued legacy to the nation.

Florence Everts

Washington, D.C., Jan. 13, 2000

The writer is member of Concerned Citizens for Dumbarton Oaks.