College Council Concerns with the Anchor House System

To be Addressed at a Meeting with CUL and Campus Social Leadership

In response to CUL’s ongoing “Williams House System” proposal that would rearrange residential life into a cluster system based around six anchor houses, College Council has deemed it necessary to formulate a reaction in order to fulfill our responsibility to our constituents, some of whom support the system and some of whom oppose the system. College Council could potentially formulate three responses to the CUL proposal: 1) CC could completely oppose the system; 2) CC could fully endorse the system; 3) CC could develop a detailed list of concerns that have been generated by students since the proposal was brought to their attention. In the interest of successfully representing all students, College Council has decided that the third option best fulfills its duty to the community at this present point. We plan that this proposal be discussed with the CUL as well as with campus residential and social governance—including the JA, HC, Campus Life, and ACE Advisors—with the hope that the student body’s concerns are or will be addressed in the plan the CUL proposes. If CC feels that CUL has not addressed all concerns, we will continue to proceed in a manner that we deem most favorable to the interest of students.

Before detailing College Council’s concerns and questions, we feel that it is proper to provide you with the historical background of the proposal, a brief overview of the component’s of the proposal, and several goals of the proposal, as most recently outlined by the CUL.

1) Historical Background

• The current housing system, known as the "free agent" system, is only twelve years old.
• Before that, students lived in the same house sophomore, junior, and senior year, with only some input in which house they would be put in.
• The main reason for the change to our current system was because of complaints from students who spent all three years in poor-quality housing
• But some would argue that in that transition, we lost a powerful source of community because the house system was a "social pillar" that is now lacking
• The CUL first began thinking about new housing ideas in 2000 when President Schapiro came to Williams and encouraged risk taking to achieve "a new standard of excellence" in many aspects of college life.
• They came within one vote of recommending an anchor system in 2002, but decided to try less radical solutions first, such as gender capping, blind room draw, and a four-person pick size.

2) Major Components of the Proposal

• The campus will be divided into six clusters, all as equal in size and housing quality as the CUL can make them.
• Each cluster will have an "anchor house" - a dorm with good social space, and nice rooms for seniors - as its physical and social center.
• Entries will not be included in the cluster system. Rising sophomores will pick the groups they will live with (6 or 7 people). That group will then be assigned to a cluster.
• Clusters will provide funding and support for social life, in a number of ways, possibly including basing intramurals, regular parties, special events, faculty affiliation, student government or some variant of the current HC system on clusters.
• The proposal also includes the CUL's advice to add more co-ops and high-quality senior housing.
• Co-ops in general, however, will not be included in clusters and the co-op room draw will occur basically as it does now.

3) Goals of the Proposal

• Decentralize the planning and running of social life away from ACE and towards house clusters, with the hope that local control and an inter-cluster competitive spirit would give party planning and social life more energy.
• Achieve greater integration in housing. Not just statistical diversity in houses, but genuine interactions between all different kinds of people and of the different classes on campus.
• Improve the sophomore experience by providing closer connections to students of other class years.
• Preserve students' ability to live with friends, and have options within the system.

* * * * * * *

The following are detailed concerns of the College Council that have been formulated in respect to overwhelming student opinion regarding the subject as well as in respect to voids that seem to have been left unaddressed by the CUL.

1) Relatively Small Size of Campus

• At peer institutions where cluster systems have been successful, the undergraduate population has generally been larger than the approximately 2000 of Williams College. We suggest that in any six-cluster system, the CUL be wary of the fact that 230 students (320 including socially-affiliated first-years) will be in each cluster. On an already small campus, we feel that we must be careful not to further limit the amount of people with whom we encourage students to primarily associate. Has the CUL thought about this? Were larger clusters proposed? If yes, why were they decided against?

2) Proximity of Houses within each Cluster

• Again, we reiterate that similar systems as peer institutions were instituted in housing arrangements that were specifically constructed with the intention of using such a system. Since houses in each cluster will be significantly geographically diverse should it be considered that the housing clusters may not necessarily work as planned?
• Since cluster events will not be mandatory, there is no way to guarantee that students will attend every event. This makes the possibility for a relapse to the old system to occur. In other words, if someone in a certain house does not feel like walking to attend an event in a cluster house far away, it is possible that that person will begin to associate with people nearby who may not necessarily be in their cluster anyway. Thus, the cluster system will be a nominal system, but in practice residential life may be extremely similar to how it works now, except that one house in a cluster will be considered the “anchor house.” How does CUL plan to address the fact that cluster events will not be mandatory? Given that CUL cannot ensure that people will definitely participate in their cluster events, what does CUL plan to do to make sure the system works?

3) Will the Goal of Mixing the Classes Really be Achieved?

• Within each cluster, students of certain classes could still potentially pick into the house that has come to be affiliated with their class. In other words, sophomores in a cluster could all potentially pick into the housing unit from Mission that is in their cluster. In this case, the goal of mixing classes will not be achieved. Does CUL have any plans for ensuring that not all people of one class pick into the stereotypical dorm for that class that is within their cluster?
• Related to this is the CUL suggestion that pick size be increased. If the goal of the overall proposal involves the mixing of classes and the hope that those who would not normally associate will associate with each other, wont increasing the number of people that one is allowed to pick in with actually increase the chance that such a person will only associate with those 6 or 7 other people? If one only lived with three other people, for example, they might be more inclined to meet others than if they lived with a large group of friends.

4) What will be the Role of Parties and ACE in the New System?

• One goal of the CUL is better and more interesting parties. It may not necessarily be wise to base a proposal about residential and social life upon only the betterment of parties.
• Furthermore, what will become of ACE when such a system is implemented? Clusters will not simply be given the funding that ACE had been given, so how will funding work? Will ACE completely be eliminated?
• Even if CUL plans to move the current funding for Social and House Events to each residential cluster’s anchor house, will there be enough money to throw events with alcohol? ACE currently uses a system of dues to pay for its alcohol in addition to the funding it receives. Will anchor houses be able to ensure that students pay their dues so each anchor receives enough money to fund parties with alcohol?
• When the former anchor house system was eliminated in 1993, there was no central campus party organization. ACE was implemented in 2001 because students felt, at the time, that a large group was needed to ensure that there would be parties on campus and that certain nights would not be void of an all-campus party option. Under the new system, will parties thrown by anchor houses be open to all students, or just those students affiliate with that cluster? If the latter is true, will a body like ACE remain intact so that students not in a cluster throwing a party will still have a party option?
• Will cluster-exclusive parties hinder the CUL’s goal of mixing students from different classes, with different interests, etc?
• Will events such as Homecoming, Spring Fling, and Winter Carnival, which have become major all-campus events, be affected by the change? Will the new system foster exclusive parties on such large, all-campus nights that will create a negative atmosphere for students?
• ACE members have expressed to CC their concern that CUL has proceeded without consulting ACE. ACE wants CUL to know that they are willing to listen and help, but do not want to be left out of the process until the end, especially if some form of ACE will be working with the Williams House System in the future. Plans for ACE must be discussed before such a system can be implemented.

5) Why is a Change in the System Being Considered so Soon?

• The CUL has been considering a system of anchor housing since 2000, only seven years after the free agent system had been implemented. The fraternity system was part of residential life for around 150 years, and the former anchor house system was implemented until 1993, for around 30 years. Why are we forcing the situation so quickly and not giving it a chance?
• In a related vain, changes were made in 2002. Thus, the system already was not given a full chance to mature.
• The age of ACE must be considered also in this case. ACE is only three years old, and while it is undeniable that changes in ACE must be considered, we must ask whether or not we have given ACE the proper time to mature.
• CC feels that such changes that have occurred over time and the mere ten years that have passed since the free agent system was adopted is relatively small in comparison to the time we allowed the other two systems to develop on campus.

6) What will become of the JA and HC Systems?

• CC understands that the entry system will remain intact as it is now.
• We wonder, however, what will happen to those people picked as JAs once their time as JA has ended. Is it guaranteed that there will be room in their cluster once they re-enter as seniors? Will JAs have the option of staying in their first-year’s cluster rather than their own original cluster.
• Second, what will become of the HC system? Will the HC system, which is failing according to the CUL, serve a different purpose in the new system? Will HCs get in the way of the cluster system working, as they are paid workers to help promote social life, house activities, and house management? Isn’t the cluster system a way of relieving the current roles of HCs?

7) Rising Sophomores

• Since rising sophomores will be able to stay in the cluster they are affiliated with, will 5 students, for example, be able to do so and add another student from another affiliation?

8) Study Away Concerns

• It would be unwise to assume that an equal number of people from each cluster will choose to study away each semester. With people coming and going, can it be guaranteed that students will definitely find housing in their cluster? What if the only excess housing is out of their cluster?

9) Co-Ops Not Included in the Cluster System

• Specific co-op buildings will not be included in a cluster, though we understand there may be some social affiliation for each co-op. What will this mean for seniors living in a co-op? Will they feel as though they have no affiliation? Will there be enough housing for each cluster without co-ops included if the college does not add more student housing / needs time to add more student housing? Will rising seniors possibly be able to pick with other seniors outside their cluster for co-ops?

10) Are the CUL goals for the System Really Worthy of Such a Drastic Overhaul?

• Many students believe that there is nothing wrong with classes or teams or groups with a similar interest wanting to live together. What is so bad about this? CUL has the burden to show that this is a problem.
• If people are going to associate, they will do so regardless of this system, especially since it is not mandatory. Thus, we revisit the concern that the system may simply relapse. Again, what measures does CUL plan to implement to prevent this?

11) Governance

• CUL has not yet fully considered the implications of the new system on student government.
• College Council was never involved in discussions about the new system of leadership nor asked its opinions about the new system by the CUL, and College Council is the representative body on campus. At the forum, CUL members mentioned that CC would probably be modified. This is not a small issue, and one that should be addressed in conjunction with CC.
• Does enough time remain in this school year to rework College Council given that CUL itself has not really had any discussions about new leadership yet?
• Has CUL discussed or hypothesized any plans, as of yet, for the governance of clusters and how that governance will tie in with broader campus governance (i.e. CC)?

12) Lack of Communication

• CUL must keep students informed of progress in the project and should not be afraid to gauge student input and use it to formulate ideas for the restructuring of residential life, whether or not it be through a cluster system. We want the CUL to realize that many administrative decisions were made without the full knowledge of the student body, and the CUL should not proceed as such.
• What kind of recommendation will CUL make to the administration about the amount of time needed before the system is implemented, given that many campus organizations may need to be changed? And how should that time be spent?
• What plans does CUL have for communicating with the student body as a whole to ensure that they stay informed about the project?

We, College Council, hope that this proposal will address the majority of questions and concerns raised by students about the new program. We submit this document to CUL in keeping with CUL's requests for continued student input. We have chosen this form in order to create a written record of a full body of concerns, to give them a structure that will facilitate their consideration, and so that students will be able to witness the dialogue and its outcome. We ask that CUL reserve some time to look over these concerns before an upcoming meeting with College Council, JA, HC, ACE and other campus social leadership representatives.

In the interest of the student body, College Council hopes that CUL will wait to propose the system until they have ensured that all areas of student life that will be affected by the change have been addressed, especially since CUL wants to proceed with its plan by the end of February. We understand well that CUL has been working on this proposal for nearly four years and that they are excited about its prospects. We ask that they be cautious, however, in proposing something before they have decided on how to make the proper changes that will inherently accompany such a proposal. We believe that the included concerns are of such a nature that, while they remain real to a significant portion of the student body, the CUL cannot be committed to the swift implementation of cluster housing that they have expressed themselves to be, and must not discard the option to delay recommendation. With this in mind, College Council reserves the right to recommend to CUL that the implementation of the system be postponed IF: (1) CUL does not adequately ensure that above concerns are addressed; (2) CUL has not addressed all areas of student life that will be affected by the new system; and (3) CUL has not adequately considered how important college organizations (i.e. CC, JAs, HCs, ACE) should fit into the new plan and whether they are harmed or helped by the anchor system. If, after meeting with CUL, College Council deems that the plan remains in a stage at which its implementation would be more harmful than helpful to the student body, we will proceed at that time in making the said recommendation.