Alex Bal '06, one of the new Co-Presidents of College Council, wrote during last month's campaign that:
Jessica [Howard '06] and I are committed to ensuring that if any changes are made to the housing system, they are only those that reflect strong student support. In light of the Record survey, we would thus oppose implementation of anchor housing in its current form. ...It is also true that most students strongly dislike the idea of having their housing and suitemate choices limited to 1/5 of the campus; for this reason, Jess and I will fight to ensure that this type of housing change is not made as long as students continue to feel this way, which we fully expect they will.9
Bal and Howard went on to win almost 80% of the vote. The other slate was also against anchor housing, so we can hardly ascribe their victory to their stand on this issue. But the fact remains that CUL has almost completely failed to convince the student body that anchor housing -- a policy change whose sole purpose is to improve the lives of Williams students -- is a good idea.
The main point of this report is not to argue against anchor housing. Obviously, we do not think that anchor housing is good policy. But even proponents of anchor housing must agree that the CUL Report is fatally flawed to the extent that it has failed to convince students that anchor housing is in their own best interest. Williams students are not stupid. They are reasonable in their skepticism. The CUL might still win them over, and thereby greatly increase the likelihood of success for anchor housing once implemented, if it took their concerns seriously.
The next version of the CUL Report should address
President Schapiro once noted that
My experience in my fourth year here as president and my 15th on the faculty is that when the students really have something to say in a powerful way, they're right, because they're closer to it and they have the well-being of our institution at heart.10
President Schapiro is exactly correct. No campus controversy in the last decade has engaged the students to the same extent as the fight against anchor housing. The students are ``closer to it and they do have the well-being of our institution at heart.'' Now, it could be that the students are wrong, that anchor is housing is what is best for them and for Williams. But, at the very least, CUL and the Administration should take their concerns seriously.
We respectfully ask the Trustees to to insist upon further investigation into the Williams House System -- its potential effects on the communities already in existence here at Williams, and the results of similar systems at other colleges -- before implementing such a scheme here at Williams College.
We arrive, again, at Professor Dew's statement that anchor housing would probably be ``the biggest change in student residential life at Williams since the abolition of fraternities.'' We agree. And it is because of their magnitude that the proposed changes deserve the most careful, thorough thought we can give them. Therefore, we ask the Trustees of the College to request that President Schapiro and Dean Roseman instruct the CUL to further investigate this issue before approving the anchor housing.