Changes

Anchor Housing, also known as ''Cluster Housing'Note:', the ''Williams House System'', or ''Neighborhood Anchor Housing'', is no longer the new upperclass housing residential system implemented at Williams; upperclassmen are no longer restricted to be one neighborhood. Anchor Housing was the residential system implemented in fall 2006under the official name "Neighborhood Housing. " The CUL refers to system is covered here under the system by its latest name, ''neighborhood'', but students most commonly call the system ''anchor'' or ''cluster'' housing, the original namesit first bore before a significant series of [[#Etymology|name changes]].

Currently[[Image:clusterMap.jpg|right|thumbnail|Map of the four clusters.]]Before the start of "Neighborhood" housing in Fall 2006, Williams upperclass housing is was a "[[Free agency|free agent]]" system. Students form formed groups of 4 up to four and are were assigned lottery numbers within their class. They Individuals then choose chose rooms on campus in order of lottery number, from lowest to highest.

Anchor housing restricts the room draw to a small cluster of dorms. Houses on campus will be divided into five four clusters, each containing approximately six houses and one "anchor" house chosen to serve as the social hub of the cluster. Rising sophomores will form groups of six, and each group will be randomly assigned to a cluster. Upperclassmen will choose rooms in a lottery exclusive to their own cluster. Students remain in the same cluster throughout their time at Williams.

There are ideas for a "House Cup" and House IM teams, cluster-associated faculty and informal faculty dinnersevents with them, designated bulletin boards in the new Baxter[[Paresky Center]], and cluster outings, but plans are not definite yet. Some students (and CUL members) have joked about whether the [http://wso.williams.edu/discuss/comments.php?DiscussionID=140 clusters will be named after the houses in the Harry Potter books]. As it turned out, the clusters ended up being named after their anchor houses, though some other sets of four names were available for voting.

* '''[[Curriercluster|Currier]]''': [[Fitch]], [[Prospect]], [[East]], [[Fayerweather]]* '''[[Dodd cluster|Dodd]]''': [[Hubbell]], Dodd Annex, [[GoodrichHouse]], [[Parsons]], [[Sewall]], Dennett[[Tyler]], Mills[[Tyler Annex]], [[Thompson]], [[Lehman]]* '''[[Spencercluster|Spencer]]''': [[Morgan]], [[West]], [[Brooks]], Gladden[[Bryant]], Carter* '''Tyler''': Tyler Annex, Thompson, Armstrong, Pratt[[Mark Hopkins]]* '''[[Wood cluster|Wood]]''': [[Perry]], [[Garfield]], [[Agard]], Bryant[[Gladden]], Mark Hopkins[[Carter]]

The houses [[ChadbourneHouse]], [[DoughtyHouse]], [[LambertHouse]], [[MilhamHouse]], [[Poker Flats]], [[Rectory]], [[Susie HopkinsHouse]], and [[Woodbridge House]] will remain (or become) [[co-op|co-ops]].

[[Dodd Annex]] will become Economics faculty offices. For the CUL's complete description of anchor housing, see the [http://www.williams.edu/resources/committees/cul/reports/2005.pdf|full proposal]. It is fairly detailed and includes a history of housing at Williams, though it perpetuates the misconception that the change from House Affiliation house affiliation to [[Free Agency agency|free agency]] was driven by the administration and was "accidental." In fact, students were freely swapping rooms well before the official switch to Free Agency, thus a de facto free agency system existed at the end of the House Affiliation period.

Anchor housing was first proposed by the 1999-2000 [[Committee on Undergraduate Life]] (CUL) under the leadership of Professor Charles Dew, a Williams alum from the time when College housing was based around fraternities. The proposed system was a bit different back then, and was finally abandoned by the 2002 CUL in favor of making discrete changes to room draw procedures: decreasing the size of pick groups from 7 to 4, implementing a blind room draw, and instituting gender caps on individual houses. The reason There are a number of reasons given for this change varies depending on who you ask: 2005 CUL members claimed that the Committee of 2000 wanted to give their changes time to work, and allow time to see how the new [[House Coordinator]] system was faring; students who were on campus in 1999-2000 suggest that the student body protested the idea of anchor housing strongly enough to get convince the CUL to back down; and some student members of the 2000 CUL claim that it was their objections to anchor housing that kept the system from being implemented in spring 2003. In [[winter study|Winter Study]] 2004, news was leaked to the ''[http://www.williamsrecord.com/wr/?view=article&section=news&id=6225 Record]'' that the 2004-2005 CUL (led by Professor Will Dudley, an alum from the days when students were affiliated with one house throughout their upperclass years) was going to propose the system again. The proposed system involved creating six clusters, with houses in each cluster scattered across campus but united by a centrally located [[anchor house]]. Each Freshman [[entry]] would be associated with a cluster, and rising sophomores would join the cluster of their entry. In the [http://www.williamsrecord.com/wr/?view=article&section=news&id=6308 second article] breaking the story, [[Morton Owen Schapiro|Morty]] was quoted as saying, "It’s in the interests of the students, ultimately. The challenge is to explain why." Shortly thereafter, commentary surfaced in the ''Record'', saturated [[WSO Blogs]], and continued for some time after the initial announcement. Most of the commentary from students was very critical of the proposed change. A group of students dedicated to preventing the implementation of anchor housing and maintaining [[free agency]] housing formed the group [[Anchors Away]]. These students conducted surveys of students (in one case, they collected written opinions from almost 200 Williams students opposed to anchor housing), wrote letters to the CUL, ''Record'', and [[Trustees]], and compiled documents detailing student objections to the anchor housing proposal. Their efforts culminated in a failed campaign for the [[College Council]] co-presidency by two of their founding members.

Though students thought that anchor housing had disappearedIn January 2005, it turned up again, suddenly, in Winter Study 2004, when news was leaked the Committee on Undergraduate Life made a series of substiantial changes to the Williams ''[http://wwwanchor housing proposal.williamsrecord Entries were detatched from clusters in favor of randomly assigning rising sophomores.com/wr/?view=article&section=news&id=6225 Record]'' that Additionally, the 2004-2005 CUL (led by Professor Will Dudley, an alum from determined that larger clusters would be more conducive to forming genuine communities and decreased the days when students were affiliated with one house throughout their upperclass years) was going number of clusters to propose the system againfive. The proposed system involved creating six clusterscluster boundaries were also redrawn to be geographically localized; each cluster, with instead of comprising houses in each cluster scattered across from all areas of campus but united by a centrally located [[anchor house]], would consist of nearby houses. Which freshman [[Entry]] a student belongs Also, the CUL began to refer to determines which the new housing proposal by the name ''cluster the student housing'' instead of ''anchor housing'', because they felt that "anchor housing" gave too much of an impression that students would be assigned stuck to as a rising sophomoresomething in their residential lives. In Finally, the date of implementation was pushed back from fall 2005 to fall 2006. This move was [http://www.williamsrecord.com/wr/?view=article&section=news&id=6308 second article6449 highly regarded] breaking by the story, [[Morty]] was quoted as saying, "It’s in the interests of the students, ultimatelystudent body. The challenge is to explain why."

The immediate student reaction was strong oppositionCUL finally [http://www.williamsrecord. Commentary saturated com/wr/?view=article&section=news&id=6484 submitted] its proposal to the administration under the ''Record'' name "Williams House System" in late February 2005, and recieved the [[WSO BlogsAdministration|Administration's]] for some time after the initial announcementapproval. A group The CUL declared that its mission in the 2005-2006 academic year would consist solely of students dedicated to preventing determining how exactly the implementation of anchor housing and maintaining transition from free agency to anchor housing formed the group [[Anchors Away]]would be carried out. These students conducted surveys of students (in one case, they collected written opinions from almost 200 Williams students opposed Asserting that the decision to anchor housing), wrote letters move to the CULnew system itself ought still to be at issue, ''Record'', and [[Trustees]], and compiled documents detailing student objections to the anchor housing proposal. Their efforts culminated students in a failed campaign for Anchors Away argued that the [[College Council]] co-presidency by two of their founding membersadministration was ignoring dissenting students' opinion.

In January April 2005, the Committee on Undergraduate Life made College Council submitted a series of substiantial changes to the anchor housing proposal. Entries were detatched from clusters in favor of randomly assigning rising sophomores. This was generally regarded as an improvement by students. Additionally, the CUL determined that larger clusters would be more conducive to forming so-called genuine communities and decreased the number of clusters to five. The cluster boundaries were also redrawn to be geographically localized; each cluster, instead of comprising houses from all areas of campus, would consist of nearby houses. Also, the CUL began to refer to the new housing proposal by the name ''cluster housing'' instead of ''anchor housing'', because they felt that "anchor housing" gave too much of an impression that students would be stuck to something in their residential lives. Finally, the date of implementation was pushed back from fall 2005 to fall 2006. This move was [http://www.williamsrecord.com/wr/?view=article&section=news&id=6449 highly regarded6706 letter of opposition] by to clusters to the student bodyadminsitration. The letter makes explicit the point that anchor housing cannot be successful without support from the students.

The A suggestion by Dean [[Nancy Roseman]] took both the CUL finally [http://wwwand student body by surprise in December 2005.williamsrecord Dean Roseman believed that there might not be enough dedicated students to fill the number of leadership positions needed in a five-cluster system.com/wr/?view=article&section=news&id=6484 submitted] its proposal The new idea reduced the number of clusters to four and changed the administration under distribution of dorms within clusters. In an effort to make each cluster's dorm space more equitable, the vague name "Williams House System" in late February 2005new plan turned [[Morgan]], [[Lehman]], [[East]], and [[Fayerweather]] into upper-class (likely sophomore) housing, and recieved moved the freshman entries previously located in those dorms to [[Mission Park]]. The former first-year dorms would recieve renovations to bolster the number of singles and availability of [[Administration'scommon room|Administrationcommon space]] approval. Students In general, students were encouraged by the reduction in Anchors Away worried that number of clusters, but opinion on the administration relocation of freshmen was ignoring their opinionmixed. When students returned from [[Dead Week]] 2006, but the CUL determined they recieved letters signed by [[Morton Owen Schapiro|President Schapiro]] and Dean Roseman announcing that its mission this four-cluster plan would be adopted in the 2005-fall 2006 academic year , and students would consist solely of determining how exactly enter it through the transition from free agency to anchor housing would be carried outSpring 2006 [[room draw]].

== Etymology == Over the years, the system pushed forward to replace free agency has had many names, depending on the year and the discoursing parties. In its first years, 2001-3, Anchor Housing or Anchor Affiliation was the name given the proposed system by the CUL and used by all discussants.  When the CUL of 2004-5 gave the system a serious revision it decided to push new names for it as well. In April Spring 2005, Professor Will Dudley, CUL chair, discussed the system under the name Cluster Housing or Cluster Affiliation in his visit then to [[College Council submitted a [http://www]].williamsrecord He believed that the old name was part of what held back student acceptance of the system, that it carried the poor connotation of dead weight and being "tied down.com/wr/?view=article&section=news&id=6706 letter " The CUL report in late Spring of oppositionthat year would refer to the system as "The Williams House System," but while "Cluster Housing" had been adopted somewhat by the community at large, "Williams House System" never entered common parlance. When the movement to affiliated housing and the debate over it resumed with the next academic year, the 2005-6 CUL began referring to clusters as "Neighborhoods." Helped in part by [[Anchors Away]] , whose members refused to use the updated monikers probably partly due to clusters counter-campaigning of their own, many students continued to use the original name, "Anchor Housing." ''Record'' news articles covering the system used the adminsitrationofficial up-to-date terms as they arose, while usually also including old ones. The letter makes explicit In contrast, some disgruntled students went a step in the other direction and termed the residential system by derogatory names, one of the point most widely caught-on being ''Clusterfuck'' -- from military slang, a disastrous situation that anchor housing cannot be successful without enthusiastic support results from the studentscumulative errors of several people or groups. Also known as Charlie Foxtrot, in semi-polite company.

Students have been deeply concerned about various Williams students are looking forward to some aspects of anchor the new housingsystem. In particular, students anticipate a better, more varied campus party scene and new campus traditions in the vein of the house affiliation system from the 70's-80's. Voiced However, during the debates immediately following the initial announcements about anchor housing in fall 2004, students enumerated a number of strong concerns includeabout the proposed system: 

* '''Freshman affiliations.''' The assignment of entries to particular clusters was met with strong disapproval by students worried that new students' housing choices would be determined entirely by their entry assignment, before they even set foot on campus. FortunatelyHowever, the CUL altered this aspect of the plan.* '''Loss of "class" living experiences.''' Sophomores will no longer be able to live as a class in [[Mission Park]], and juniors will no longer be able to live together in the [[Greylock Quad]]. Some credit the Mission Park renovations in the summer of 2003 as dramatically improving the Williams sophomore experience, and are concerned that anchor housing will take away the benefits of living as a class with all the people who got to know one another as entrymates during freshman year. The shift of first-year students to Mission Park will restore some of the benefits of the Mission "class living experience."

* '''The Odd Quad.''' Members of the [[Odd quad | Odd Quad]] (officially known as the Berkshire Quad to the uninitiated and CUL members) community use the dorms Currier and Fitch as a social hub. These students, self-described [[deviants]], are often set apart from the rest of campus culture. Without a physical social base, they worry that their way of life will be severely disrupted. Anchor housing will randomly spread these students around the entire campus, effectively destroying the Odd Quad as a cohesive community. CUL members responded that the Odd Quad is a perfect example of "theme housing" and should not, in fact, exist as a residential community.

However, the Committee on Undergraduate Life made statements to the effect that a student opinion poll would not affect their decision. The 2005-2006 CUL has singlemindedly dedicated intself itself to implementing anchor housing in fall 2006. The implementation of anchor housing is now considered a moot point (in fact, indications are that anchor housing was destined to be implemented right from the beginning, when the administration voiced approval to it in its infancy), though some students push for a modified cluster system that preserves some elements of free agency.

The CUL is debating how to accomplish the transition to anchor Cluster housing, how houses should be governed, how to evaluate defined by the success or failure division of clusters in the futurecampus as four different Neighborhoods, is fully in motion and how funding should be allocated began to clustersfunction at the beginning of the 2006 fall semester.

Edit Students elected leaders to fill four positions on each neighborhood board as well as electing to retain the existing names over such choices as nearby mountains and the Ninja Turtles. In addition to the elected students, each board will contain one [[Stuff the CUL should doHLC]] (basically an HC) who will also be on the board. These students will be arriving early to provide input school for planning, team building and training in how to navigate the Committeecollege's event regulations and budgets.

The [http://www.williams.edu/resources/committees/cul/members.html CUL website] currently contains a member list, links to previous CUL reports, Freshmen lived in entries loosely affiliated with Neighborhoods while all upperclassmen and most off-campus seniors picked into and a feedback form. There are also minutes from some now living in one of the subcommittee meetingsfour neighborhoods.

The CUL [[Faculty Associates and Affiliates]]One of the assets of the anchor housing system is apparently trying to obtain increasing opportunities for student-faculty interaction. Though the neighborhoods will be largely student-run, they will also receive some assistance from a small number of faculty associates in conjunction with the names Office of students who Campus Life. In addition, every faculty member on campus will be affiliated with one of the four residential neighborhoods, and have edited this wiki articlethe opportunity to participate in some neighborhood activities.