New Housing Policies Generate Controversy

by C.J. Carnacchio

In an effort to alleviate the overcrowding in traditional residence halls and quell campus concern, University Housing made the controversial decision to deny juniors and seniors the option of living in these halls. In September 1997, roughly 1,000 in-coming freshmen were forced to either live in converted triples (three students living in a room meant for two) or seek temporary housing in residence hall lounges. This incident generated complaints from angry students and parents, and prompted University Housing to seek a resolution to prevent future overcrowding.

The Michigan Daily first reported Housing's decision in their November 19, 1997 issue, but the University did not provide any detailed information about the move until December 8th, when a fact sheet and letter were distributed to students residing in the dorms. Beginning in September 1998, any juniors and seniors who wish to live in the dorms will be limited to four options: Baits, Cambridge, Fletcher, and Oxford Housing. These halls are considered non-traditional since they do not provide meal service. The only upperclassmen who will be the exceptions to this policy are those who are Residence Hall Association executive officers, house and minority council officers, selected University Housing employees, and Shipman and Bentley Scholars.

Between 1990 and 1997 the actual enrollment of first year students jumped from 4,631 to 5,534; an increase of 19 percent. This freshman increase coupled with an increase of students returning to the dorms beginning in 1994 caused the overcrowding. As the size of the freshman class increases, the same percentage of returning residents produces more leases signed and fewer spaces for incoming freshmen.

University Housing maintains that it only guarantees freshmen a space in a traditional dorm, regardless of their housing application date and no others. Director of Housing Public Affairs Alan Levy states, "We have never guaranteed housing to upperclass students. The fact that we can only house a third of the student body is the reason why we have this elaborate off campus system."

Housing's decision has angered many students. One source of frustration came in what appeared to be a lack of official communication between the University and parents and students. LSA Junior Jonathan Mezzadri spear-headed an e-mail petition drive which collected hundreds of complaints from members of the University community over the limiting ofstudent options. Speaking on the lack of communication Mezzadri pointed out, "I found it particularly interesting that we read a November 19 article in the Daily about the decision but it wasn't until December 8 that we received letter that we received letters in our mailboxes and the letter to the parents was post-marked December 18." Levy responds, "Could we have done better? Probably, in terms of communication. If we had it to do over again we would have gotten the letters out earlier."

Mezzadri makes the point that the decision runs contrary to the University's self-professed commitment to diversity because it will segregate the freshmen from experienced upperclassmen. He states, "Upperclass students set the tone and personality of the various dorms. I also personally feel that learning by example is a very important part of life, and without examples, many first-year students may have a harder time adapting to college life in general."

Many have criticized the decision as greedy since a larger freshman class means more money. LSA sophomore Annie Tomlin said, "They're getting so many freshmen in that they're forgetting other students. It seems to be a blatant disrespect for upperclassmen and a little money grubbing." Levy states that the increase of freshmen is a result of the inability to predict the number of accepted students who will enroll at the University. He further states that, "I think it is safe to say that the University will never make a decision about the size of the freshman class based on whether University Housing has some vacancies or not; that you can take to the bank."

Others feel the decision takes priority away from the students who deserve it most; the juniors and seniors. "I feel that since we have more seniority we should have more options," said Junior Alice Chen. But, Levy insists that this is not a permanent or calculated move against upperclassmen: "We're doing this as a practical, we hope temporary solution, to reduce overcrowding and to make sure that we have adequate space for new students who are viewed as not the only audience we need to serve but a very critical audience we are obliged to serve. We hope that we won't have to do this again next year."

Many have expressed concern over what will happen to the estimated 400-600 juniors and seniors who will be affected by this policy. There is fear among this body of students and their parents that they will have no place to live next year. Currently, the non-tradtional halls which will house the juniors and seniors in September are filled to capacity and those living there have top priority in the re-application policy. But, Levy assures that there will be a sufficient turnover in these halls to accommodate any upperclassmen who wish to live there: "No one is being kicked out of University Housing. In some cases the choices may become constricted but if you want to live in on-campus housing you will have that opportunity."

Levy insists that once Admissions has calculated the best estimate as to the size of the incoming freshman class, Housing can then make the final determination of the number of residents which can return to the residence halls. If these numbers fall below the limit, Housing will permit juniors and seniors to sign leases in traditional dorms.

Housing's decision has left many students feeling panicked; that they have to rush to seek alternative housing. But, Levy contends that "The rushing around is in large measure a function of the misinformation campaign fueled by rumors." Mezzadri blames Housing for the panic some students have felt over the issue, saying, "It seems that Housing created the rumors by not officially releasing any information for nearly a month after the news reached students."

Everyone from the Regents and RHA members to students have asked why Housing did not explore the possibility of building another dorm. Levy said that building a new dorm was not considered because such a decision is not simply a Housing decision but a University decision. He does not rule out the option as an alternative in the future, but it will "not happen until some stage further along in President Bollinger's process of developing a master campus plan."

Levy assures that a comprehensive information package regarding all the details of this year's re-application process will distributed sometime at the end of January. MR

This article was published in the 21 January 1998 edition of The Michigan Review (Volume 16, Number 6).
For questions or comments, see the Contact Information page.