Students voiced opposition to a possible restructuring of chem-free housing in two open forums this week. The potential changes to chem-free housing—which would reshape how first years are assigned to rooms—could occur as soon as this fall.
After surveying approximately 500 individuals including students, faculty and residential life staff members, a committee compiled a list of popular recommendations, which were published in a report in February.
Perhaps the most controversial suggestion advanced by the committee was discontinuing Hyde Hall as the designated chem-free first 's status year brick, and adopting a "floating floor model on a two year trial basis" beginning in the 2013-2014 academic year.
The floating floor system would split up first year chem-free housing, and assign chem-free students to individual floors spread out between the eight first year bricks. Additionally, certain "chem-free rooms or clusters" would be intentionally placed within non-chem-free floors.
The committee that proposed the changes held the forums to gather feedback. Despite the scope of the study that informed the committee's report, a large percentage of the chem-free students were angered by the findings. Many chem-free students, ranging from first years to members of Howell House and Howard Hall, felt that their opinions on the matter had not been accurately represented in the report.
John Grover '14, a member of Howell House, created and distributed a petition to voice, "strong disapproval of the proposed changes to the chem-free housing and College House system."
In the span of one week, Grover acquired over 400 signatures from students living all around campus, including those within all eight first-year resident halls, seven College Houses, six upperclass residence halls, and three upperclass apartments. A majority of residents within each of the chem-free buildings of Hyde, Howell, and Howard signed the petition. According to Grover, suggesting that the committee's report was not as representative of the entire campus as originally thought.
"I wish to point out that while many of us in the chem-free community feel that some of the more moderate proposed changes would be beneficial, there is something seriously wrong with the suggestion that we chem-free students, the alleged victims of an exaggerated stigma, should be forced to undergo the 'solution' of the disbandment of Hyde, when we ourselves do not feel there needs to be such a change," wrote Grover in an email to the Orient.
Kaitlin Donahue '13, member of the committee that issued the report, sympathized with Grover's concerns about the dissolution of Hyde. Yet she believes that the proposed floating floor model will not endanger the composition of Howell House.
"I definitely understand where his concerns are coming from. We've researched every aspect of every part of the social life on campus; and from what we found, there's been a positive experience" with the floating floor model, said Donahue.
"No matter what happens, there will not be a dissolution of chem-free housing," she continued.
Additionally, the petition stated that the feedback that went into the report was not objective enough, and "considered only the side supporting its proposals."
Grover's petition cites numerous logistical concerns that would arise from the discontinuation of Hyde Hall as the chem-free brick. With chem-free floors dispersed between the eight first year bricks, many students—feeling "co-affiliated" with two houses—may opt to live in a College House other than Howell, the petition says. It goes on to say that a potential "erosion of the membership base of Howell" may eventually lead to the dissolution of the chem-free community altogether.
"I really want to keep Hyde the way it is because, according to the petition, the majority of our affiliates feel that way, and because this issue disproportionately affects chem-free students," said Grover. "Even though I feel like everyone has a right to make a decision and be a part of this...I feel like chem-free students should be given quite a bit of weight in this decision."
At Wednesday's Bowdoin Student Government (BSG) meeting, Grover and fellow Howell House member Kailey Bennett '14, presented his petition's findings. Those in attendance tended to side with the suggestions recommended in the committee's report.
Certain BSG members agreed with the notion that perhaps utilizing a floating floor model would be beneficial, and would help students associate with peers they would not otherwise have the opportunity to understand at a deeper level.
"Ever since I got to Bowdoin, something that's been drilled into my ear is that Bowdoin is going to teach me how to step outside my comfort zone and to learn how to live outside this comfort zone," said Max Staiger '13, Inter-House Council president. "Yeah, there might be some problems with alcohol that you have to deal with, but I think that that makes you step outside your comfort zone, and I think it's part of college.
Staiger, however, had some reservations regarding inter-house programming. "If you do have floating floor models or just chem-free students spread throughout the bricks mixed with everyone else, then it would force houses to rethink how they go about programming," said Staiger. "Would that take three to four years to figure that out? Yeah. Do I think it's a good idea? No."
A number of Howell House residents felt that on top of presenting the petition with the procured signatures, a formal statement addressing the major concerns with the committee's proposal would be appropriate.
"We felt that as the leading source of chem-free activities and entertainment on campus, a lot of people in the house thought that we should at least do something about this, and that it would be improper of us to just do nothing and let it pass by," said Christopher Gravallese '14, a resident of Howell House. "We decided we needed to make a statement affirming some parts of the committee's proposal, but also disagreeing respectfully with some of what the committee said."
The formal statement drawn up by Gravallese will be made public later this week.
Despite the polarized views on the recommendations, there is at least one change that most students agree would be beneficial to future classes.
Starting next year, the housing form for incoming students will be altered, allowing students to place themselves on a spectrum according to their desire to live in a chem-free environment.
The committee's report noted that a change in the housing nomenclature would likely be appropriate. "Not everyone understands what they are signing up for when choosing 'chem-free'; in some cases, parents are signing up their first-year students for chem-free housing," the committee wrote. "In addition, many first-years don't know until they get to campus what choices they might make around alcohol."
A number of students noted that terms such as "chem-lite," "low chem," or "wellness community" are often vague and may confuse incoming first years, leaving them unsure about what kind of housing they are signing up for.
"There are a lot of fiery opinions about this issue and there are a lot of people who have very strong leanings one way or the other," noted Gravallese. "But I think in the end, everyone should realize that whether you're siding with the committee on the proposal, or against the committee, we all want the exact same thing—the best possible experience for chem-free and non-chem-free Bowdoin students."