Thursday saw the ribbon-cutting of the highly anticipated, but largely disappointing, Shapiro Campus Center. University administrators have frequently extolled student participation in the project, and have said the building has been designed with students' wants and needs in mind. President Jehuda Reinharz's speech in part lauded student input and emphasized the role of "democracy" in the planning. Nevertheless, undergraduates feel disconnected from the project and are suspicious about how much its design really takes them, rather than would-be donors, into account.Since before ground was broken two years ago where Ford Hall stood, the sentiment on campus has been that housing problems trump the dubious need for this project. Since the building opened in August, complaints have only increased: The bookstore is too small; essential functions are decentralized; the building is incomplete; some groups cannot yet fully function in their new space; and, most often heard, the blue-green color is unattractive.

That said, student groups lucky enough to be relocated will ultimately benefit from the new space. But, aside from the already-popular "library," most students are, for the time being, unlikely to make use of this $25 million building. Even groups who are now benefiting have faced an enormous hassle to get to this point; coordinating the transition has been harrowing for club leaders who are themselves students with classes and other responsibilities.

Thursday's hurried preparation to make the campus center ready for Carl Shapiro to cut the ribbon only worsened sentiment that the building is about everything but the students. Administrators say it was the designer, in an effort to make the building look less "lived-in," initiated an invasion of both student and staff offices.

Some alterations were minor; staff hid their coffee mugs and straightened their desks as asked. However, several student groups -- including the Justice, the Union Senate, the Undergraduate Theater Collective and Archon-- faced an unexpected "cleaning." Without warning, Union Senate furniture was moved out of their office and strewn about the building for the ceremony. Around lunchtime that day, the Justice's computers and telephones were disconnected, furniture rearranged and possessions locked in a closet. Other groups experienced similar problems as well and are still picking up the pieces, wondering where some things are and how this was allowed to happen.

Club leaders were not warned of this impending house-cleaning -- a so-called clean that disregarded clubs' continuous functions as well as ignored that their offices are necessarily going to look lived-in. To ask groups to clean their offices or to inform them of impending changes, provided that no alterations harm club autonomy or disrupt functions, is perfectly reasonable; however, to march authoritatively into their offices in this fashion is outrageous and disproves the democratic approach Reinharz lauded only hours after this overhaul took place. This move violated students' rights, and undermined and disregarded the vital function and contributions of half a dozen student groups.

Indeed, donors like Carl and Ruth Shapiro are largely to thank for the prestigious institution we have the privilege to attend. But, that students feel their concerns are neglected on their own campus suggests the University is not prioritizing undergraduate input. Instead, it is cowering to satisfy individuals, who despite their invaluable contributions, should not be allowed to override students' voices.