Door replacement controversy Greg Dodge and Nicole Goings Staff Reporters Have you ever stopped to notice the main entrance doors at the Student Union? They are old, dark, stained glass double doors, and recently Glendale Community College has proposed replacing the doors with new sliding glass doors, the kind you see at your local supermarkets. But is it necessary? Many individuals on campus say no. Dr. R.J. Merrill, an instructor for the art department and a driving force behind keeping the doors, said he believes replacing the doors is unnecessary. “They are a rare bright spot in otherwise institutional buildings and a part of the original fabric of the campus,” Merrill said. Other instructors feel that the doors reflect GCC’s long history. “The doors are one of the only objects left from the beginning of the school’s foundation,” those and myself,” Dr. Don Higgins, an instructor for the social science department said. Merrill and Higgins also feel that there are other ways to keep the doors. “I think that they can be preserved in another building as well, a building that doesn’t require so much maintenance, entering and exiting,” Higgins said. Perhaps Dr. Jim Reed, president of the Faculty Senate, said it best. ”Whatever we do concerning the doors must be consistent with the architecture of the campus, and I can’t think of anything more consistent with GCC than a broken door.” There is nothing wrong with the doors,” Dr. Reed also said, “If we fix all the places people see first, we’ll never fix up what really needs fixing, like my office door.” Out of 50 students polled, the majority see no problem with the stained glass doors. “If there is a controversy, it must be because of the cost,” a GCC student said. “Why not save the money instead of hiking the tuition cost?” However, some members of the student body feel that the issue is not up to them but up to the school. “I personally don’t care if we get new doors, but if the student union feels its necessary, then it should be done,” said another student. “The school will do what they want to do,” said Higgins. Merrill’s heartfelt struggle to preserve the doors may be coming to a disappointing conclusion. ‘[The doors] are things we could never hope to replace today because of the cost, and their removal for the sake of practicality seems shortsided,” he said. If the student body and faculty did have a say in the controversy, then the removal of the doors might not seem so shortsided and the preservation of history could be maintained.