When the College of Charleston Foundation announced plans to purchase the McLeod Plantation in September 2009, the debate on the student side was limited at best.  After it was released that the transaction would be done with private funds, the vast majority of students ranged from indifferent to excited about the acquisition, which would not increase their tuition a cent but would double the College’s current campus size.
However, a nonprofit organization known as the Friends of McLeod has been fighting hard to keep the property out of C of C’s hands.  They claim the Foundation’s purchase and development of the plantation for academic use would destroy its integrity and pave over hundreds of years of invaluable history.  They even started an online petition, ominously titled “Save McLeod Plantation from Destruction!”, which gives the impression that the College would be bulldozing the historic buildings to make room for a new parking lot or shopping mall, not using the property for the purposes of education as College officials have stated in several press releases.
In fact, it seems odd that an organization dedicated to historic preservation would try to hinder its study.  According to George Watt, the Executive Director of the Foundation, the goal would be to turn the plantation into a “living laboratory” for students to not only study, but participate in historic preservation. 
The fact that the plantation is currently in a state of disrepair and would require around $100,000 to keep the buildings from falling over in a strong wind should make the Friends happy that an organization is willing to take on such a cost, but their insistence that the plantation be kept not only public, but free from construction makes them completely inflexible in their stance.
What the Friends need to realize is that the historical benefit would be maximized if the College were to acquire McLeod Plantation.  Students would be able to study its historic merits firsthand and the acquisition would assuredly bolster the College’s historic preservation studies, instilling in a new generation the same values that the Friends have dedicated their lives to protect.
This circumstance, like most others in life, calls for a compromise.  The Friends of McLeod raise some legitimate concerns, but their inflexibility limits their ability to engage the College in a conversation.  For both sides to be at least partially satisfied with the results, each needs to not only see the merit in their respective arguments, but also not get caught in the dated trap of strict ideology, which in the end may hurt the Friends of McLeod more than it could help.