The 2002 Report

One of the more sideline shames of the campus life tinkering this time around is the concurrent acknowledgment that the restrictions put in force in 2002 have not achieved anything of meaningful merit.⁶ What we refer to is:

• Gender capping of houses at 60%.

• Reduction of pick sizes from 7 to 4.

• Creation of blind room draw, where names are no longer allowed to be posted on WSO or on the physical posters in the pick room.

Back in 2002, the CUL published a report⁷that gave their recommendations in great detail, and was scant in two other departments: 1) presenting the evidence they believed supported their recommendations, and 2) presenting a set of goals whose attainment would measure the success or failure of their recommendations.

Without these ``features,'' which would have been standard in any serious study of any kind in any academic field, a review of the CUL's data by anyone outside of the CUL was impossible, and judgment of whether their recommendations would serve their goals equally impossible, as there could be no common understanding of what those goals were. Some thought it was to achieve racial house diversity, some gender, some diversity by extracurricular affiliation (especially sports teams), some all of the above. The CUL, at the time, was clearer about what it was trying to avoid than what it was trying to promote: ``We don't like theme housing.'' ``It is ridiculous that this house is overwhelmingly male.'' ``Some houses have taken on a cross-year character; this is bad.''

They also made an appeal to authority: ``We have studied this extensively for 3 years ...'' hence, and we won't say it in so many words, but we really do know better than you. The next draft of the CUL Report should include:

• As extensively as they can, a presentation of all their data and reasoning from it, whether that data be anecdotal or numerical, from Williams or from other schools.

• An unambiguous statement of what aspects of life are intended to be improved on this campus.

• A statement of when the CUL will be ready and willing to hold their new system to these standards. If they have been found to have failed, they must be met with the same recommendation for abandonment that the CUL gives to our current system of housing.

To which a CUL member replied:

To begin with, your suggestions and criticisms are fantastic. This CUL will definitely be careful not to make the same mistakes the 2002 CUL made in their proposal. You're correct in noting the importance of defining clear criteria for success and failure which can be used in judging and forming any residential system in the years to come.⁸

But the CUL Report included none of these suggestions! Our point is not that the CUL's goals are bad goals. We are concerned that the CUL Report does not produce any evidence that the proposed changes will accomplish these goals, and we are concerned that the CUL has missed data of critical importance.

Assume that anchor housing is implemented. Five years pass. Should Williams declare victory or should we return to free agency? The CUL needs to tell us now what the standards for judgment should be then. Without this guidance, it will be impossible to know whether or not anchor housing has been successful, whether or not the trade-offs involved have been worth it.