About a month ago, the Chem- Free Housing Review Committee submitted its proposal for modifying first year chem-free housing. I would like to air some concerns about this proposal, even though I no longer live in chem-free housing.
I lived in Hyde my freshman year; I had an amazing time, and I want future first years to have a similar experience. I am troubled by a particular point in the committee's report: the plan to replace Hyde as the chem-free dorm, in favor of redistributing chem-free floors throughout the first year bricks.
One of the more subtle reasons why some people choose to live chem-free is that it is usually a much quieter environment—this was certainly something I considered. There are plenty of Hyde residents that leave the dorm and drink, but it can be nice to be able to return to a home free of noise and other disturbances. Whether one wants a study space, uninterrupted (and early) sleep, or a homier environment, the appeal of Hyde remains. Living on a chem-free floor would not be the same as having a chem-free dorm; the walls in the bricks are much too thin for that.
But it is more than just a matter of comfort.
For example, I think the studying and working environment provided by chem-free floating floors (as opposed to a chem-free dorm) could make a significant difference for students for whom academic achievement is a first priority. I do not mean to suggest that Bowdoin students are not hardworking—they are—but for some international, disadvantaged, or first-generation college students, the stakes are higher to earn top grades.
I would also like to point out that the chem-free culture is a unique one on campus. While I think the proposal does acknowledge and celebrate this, I believe the committee underestimates the extent to which this culture will be disturbed by the proposed changes.
The major problem is that Howell would still be affiliated with all of the dispersed chem-free floors, which would be a logistical nightmare. Howell House gets its strength from its commitment to meeting first years personally and to actively getting them involved in the house's activities; scattering affiliates over many houses will hamper the house's ability to act effectively. The current chem-free floors are already a perennial problem for Howell.
The matter remains that we really do need an active chem-free culture. It is wonderful that we have chem-free parties and other alternatives for students dissatisfied with, or apprehensive of, the larger drinking culture at Bowdoin.
I agree completely with the committee's report that we should support chem-free programming, and we should seek to include the whole community in such events. I only fear that the proposal, as it stands, will be counter-productive in this regard.
Thankfully, there is still plenty of time for student input to be heard. Right before break, I went to an open Residential Life meeting about the issue, which went incredibly well.
The range of ideas discussed was staggering.
One of my favorite suggestions was to give incoming students a choice to live in a chem-free dorm or on a chem-free floor. It is understandable that for some, living on a chem-free floor would be preferable. If we give new students the choice, there is a better chance that they will find living conditions that suit them.
There were a variety of other ideas at the meeting—far too many for me to list here—many of which seem very promising.
So let the College know your thoughts, attend the ResLife meetings (I cannot stress enough how important that is!), and we just might be able to build something amazing.
Arseniy Sheydvasser is a member of the Class of 2012.