OPPOSING VIEW: To Require
The University is at a crossroad. From hearing administrators talk, LSU is within spitting distance of becoming a second-tier institution. Covering the last bit of ground in earning the national recognition necessary to move out of the third tier, however, has brought about some tough questions some are hesitant to address. And the issue that seems to provoke the most adamant responses from folks on both sides is requiring students to live in on-campus housing during their first year. The first-year residency requirement does have its positives, and trying to say it does not would be a misrepresentation of fact. A great deal of the research provided by the policy’s development committee shows universities with similar requirements have higher retention rates, grade point averages and graduation rates for their freshman classes. These quantitative measures are among those used by U.S. News and World Report when making their determination of which universities rank where on their list of top institutions in the country. Besides the committee, just about every administrative office and organization on campus has given the requirement the go-ahead. But the policy simply does not address the multitude of problems that will occur if it is implemented because the dorms aren’t ready for it. I am a former one-year resident of Kirby Smith hall, and I carry that distinction with a similar pride that a soldier who has served in the trenches has for himself and his fellow soldiers. Living in the so-called “Tower of Terror” had its ups and downs, but I did form a bond with some of my brothers in arms that I carry with me today. This unity of shared misery is among those cited by the first-year requirement committee as a positive aspect of the proposal. Yes, there is a unity that can germinate in the residency halls, but it grows with the same nasty fervor that the mold in many residential hall showers grows. It’s a warped kind of unity if you ask me. Studying in a dorm is nearly impossible, what with raucous room/suitemates, fire drills – both planned and mischievously unplanned – and even simple things such as not being allowed to have a coffee pot. So while I acknowledge freshman grades could rise by living in the dorms, I am unsure how this is possible because I find it hard to believe they will make the arduous trek across campus to the library to study after dark when many students – especially women living away from home for the first time in their lives – feel unsafe walking alone. Making a late-night meal to give a nervous student the energy to persevere in his studies is limited to a cup of ramen or a bag of Easy Mac because the residence halls do not have kitchens worth anything, and it’s hard to trust the cleanliness of those facilities because so many students use them. Did you know cockroaches will not die if let loose in a microwave while it is turned on? Just a little something I picked up in the dorms. . . The most aggravating part of the proposal is that it is supposed to make students feel as though they can become more involved on campus. But residence halls open and close at specified dates, making it rather difficult for dorm residents who become involved on campus and have to be on campus working outside of those dates. It’s OK, though, because after work you can go home to your girl/boyfriend and spend the rest of the night complaining about how difficult University life is. Oh right, can’t do that in a dorm either. Well you can, but you better make sure to get them out the side door before curfew. The University’s residential hall system is actually a great thing and can provide an atmosphere where lifelong memories can be formed, but the system should not be forced upon students against their consent. No means no, right? Though some have claimed the proposed policy is unconstitutional, University law professor Paul Baier said it is unlikely that a legal decision could overturn it. “It’s a delicate question,” Baier said. “But as someone who teaches this, I can say that if there is an educational benefit, it is very unlikely that it could be subject to a successful legal challenge. Judges are hesitant to question the decisions of educators, and they should be.” What it comes down to really is allowing adults, as all the students on campus are, to make their own decisions. Students are a primary source of income for the University, and they should be given the opportunity and responsibility that the financiers of the University deserve.
—–Contact Jeff Jeffrey at editor@lsureveille.com