CUL Response to College Council Questions Regarding the Williams House System

The members of the Committee on Undergraduate Life (CUL) appreciate the College Council’s interest in expressing student questions and concerns. The CUL has been listening carefully to students’ opinions throughout this process of formulating its proposal on the Williams House System and takes seriously your constituents’ suggestions.

Before responding to each of the questions in turn, we would like to update you on some modifications that we have recently made to our proposal because of student input.

1) There will be five (not six) clusters. The five proposed clusters are: Currier-Fitch-Prospect; Dodd-Hubbell-Dodd Annex-Goodrich-Parsons-Sewall-Dennett-Mills; Tyler-Tyler Annex-Thompson-Armstrong-Pratt; Spencer-West-Brooks-Gladden-Carter; Wood-Perry-Garfield-Agard-Bryant-Mark Hopkins.

This new model has the following significant benefits:

§ Enhanced student choice, as each cluster now has 275 upperclassmen members (as compared to 240 in the previous, six-cluster model).

§ Greatly enhanced geographic unity of the clusters, which will facilitate interaction within each cluster.

§ All members of each cluster now live in close proximity to the same dining hall, which will facilitate eating together on a regular basis, as well as participating in special dining events.

§ Greatly enhanced class-year mixing. Mission Park and Greylock will both be roughly half sophomores and half juniors.

§ The creation of 10 new high-quality singles and 2 new co-op beds. The plan converts 10 doubles into singles in Spencer-Brooks-West, and converts Chadbourne and Woodbridge into co-ops (while Goodrich, Parsons, and Sewall become regular houses)

2) Students will receive their initial cluster membership in the spring of the first-year, in groups of up to 6, but all students will have the option in subsequent years to form a group of up to 3 with friends from outside of their cluster, and apply to receive a new cluster membership together.

§ This provision ensures that students who find their closest friends after the first year have the opportunity to live together.

***

We will turn now to your specific questions.

1) Relatively Small Size of Campus

§ Both the history of Williams College and the experience at other schools of similar size demonstrate that residential affiliation can work very well at a liberal arts college.

§ The new five-cluster model enhances student choices within the proposed system.

2) Proximity of Houses within each Cluster

§ Again, the new five-cluster model addresses concerns regarding geographic proximity. In this model there are no longer any cluster connections from Mission Park across campus to the Row Houses.

§ The variety of cluster activities and events (parties of different sizes and types, community service projects, faculty-student interaction, dining, trips, special performances and lectures, movie nights) will also help facilitate cluster interactions. The CUL has no intention of mandating what those activities and events should be—one of the strengths of this system is that it gives students the power to shape their cluster’s social life.

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

§ Again, the new five-cluster model addresses this issue. Not only will the sophomores, juniors, and seniors in each cluster now live in the same area of campus, but most sophomores and juniors will live in the same houses.

§ We understand your suggestion that a room draw size of 3 might encourage class-year mixing, but we have balanced this concern with the desire of students to live with their friends. Many students already feel that the pick size of 4 is too small; we do not want students to have to sacrifice living with their friends.

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

§ The CUL’s proposal is not “based” on “better and more interesting parties”— that is only one of many goals.

§ The future of ACE should and will be determined in discussions between ACE, CC, and the Office of Campus Life.

§ Before ACE, there was a body that was in charge of truly all-campus events such as bringing bands, comedians and other forms of entertainment to the College. A body that organizes all-campus activities and events could certainly continue to exist.

§ The CUL has every intention of continuing its conversation with ACE as well as CC regarding these issues.

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

§ The Williams House System is being proposed after careful consideration of many students’ suggestions, since 1993, of how their residential and social experiences at Williams could be better. These concerns are reflected in the goals of the CUL’s proposal.

§ The transition to Free Agency 12 years ago was the accidental result of changes that were intended to address a specific practical problem of the old house system – namely, that some students felt stuck in single undesirable house for 3 years. This led to the creation of the all campus room draw, but there was little if any discussion of possible ramifications for the lives of students, and it was not intended or anticipated that the entire house based system of residential life would disappear. It is thus an exaggeration to speak of the current free agency model as a “system” that should be allowed time to mature, and it is doubtful that time and small changes alone will make free agency a substantially more effective and meaningful form of residential life. The current work of the CUL represents the first time since the abolition of the fraternities more than 40 years ago that Williams has thoughtfully considered the appropriate role of residential life at the College.

§ ACE can certainly be given “time to mature” under the Williams House System, but reform of ACE alone would not address the many goals of the CUL’s proposals and would put undue pressure on an already overburdened ACE.

§ Discussions with HCs and other members of the residential life staff at the College have made it clear that free agency generates systemic problems that hinder their ability to perform effectively.

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

§ JAs will retain their cluster membership during, and after, their junior year. This was true during the old house system at Williams, and worked quite well. JAs will also enjoy a social affiliation with their entry’s cluster.

§ The CUL welcomes suggestions regarding the role of HCs in cluster governance. At the present time, we envision HCs working with elected cluster officers, but this is a topic for on-going discussion and we welcome input.

7) Rising Sophomores

§ If a group of rising sophomores includes students from various social affiliations, it will be randomly assigned to a cluster.

8) Study Away Concerns

§ Every effort will be made to place students in their cluster, but there may be instances when a student finds housing in a nearby house. The student can, of course, continue to participate in his or her own cluster’s events and activities. This was also the case under the old house system, and it too worked quite well. Juniors returning from time abroad benefit from knowing that they will not simply be coming back to an isolated room on campus, but will be renewing their friendships and activities within the cluster in which they are already members.

9) Co-Ops Not Included in the Cluster System

§ Co-ops will continue to have a separate room draw, in which students from any cluster can participate. Co-op residents will retain their cluster membership and can choose to participate in any cluster events and activities.

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

§ There is certainly nothing wrong with forming friendships based on class year, teams, or groups, but students can enrich their experiences by discovering mutual interests that do not fall into specific identities as defined by campus organizations. Students’ identities are not entirely defined by their class year and extra-curricular activities; moving beyond these categories can allow friendships to be formed through connections that otherwise would not be made (as often happens in entries).

§ The CUL has no intention of diluting the ties that currently exist between members of certain teams or groups. The cluster memberships will supplement already existing relationships. Under the old house system students typically had strong attachments to their teams or groups, their houses, and also their class year.

11) Governance

§ The CUL continues to solicit opinions from CC regarding student government. Any refashioning of CC should be based on the initiative and vision of your organization.

12) Lack of Communication

§ The CUL has communicated with students through its public forums, discussions with smaller groups of students, meetings with CC, the JA Advisory Board, the HCs, and informal dialogue with ACE leaders. CUL Chair Will Dudley has responded to all e-mails from students, and a representative from The Record has been welcome at all CUL meetings throughout the year.

§ As a result of student input, many changes have been made to the original proposal (nature of entry affiliations, timing of entry membership, maintaining a separate co-op room draw, size of the clusters, opt-out mechanism). We welcome and continue to listen to student suggestions.

§ The issue of timing will depend on the assessments of Dean Roseman and President Schapiro, and is largely out of the hands of the CUL.

§ Students are welcome to e-mail any or all members of the CUL with any suggestions. There will also be a CUL website with updates to the proposal that should be up shortly.

As always, we welcome further questions and suggestions, and an on-going dialogue about the Williams House System.