Wed 25 Jan 2006
There is a meeting tonight on physical spaces. More on this tommorrow but, in the meantime, if you are a student or student leader you should go to this meeting and lobby for more co-op spaces, at least for keeping Goodrich, Parsons and Sewall as co-ops. In a four cluster model, there is no particular reason why the clusters need to be the same size, so there is no reason why these co-ops need to be converted. Below is my email to the CUL on the topic.
Print • EmailHi,
1) Kudos to all of you for spending so much time and energy to make Williams a better place.
2) For those who don’t know me, I am a participant at EphBlog and have written an absurd amount on the topic of anchor housing. If you are curious, see here:
http://www.ephblog.com/2005/03/31/Anchor-Housing-Round-Up/
3) Although I am not a fan of anchor housing — or, rather, I am a huge fan of free agency — I think that the 4 cluster proposal with First Years in Mission is not a bad option. Indeed, it helps to alleviate many of the concerns that I and others have with anchor housing. I realize that this is more Dean Roseman’s call than yours, but I hope that you will lend your voice in its favor.
4) I don’t have great insights into why the 4 cluster is a better plan. I agree with most of the points made by the Record.
5) If the 4 cluster plan is approved, I hope that you will use this occasion to significantly increase the number of co-ops spaces. One aspect of the original plan that made me (and many others) quite upset was the loss of co-ops spots in Goodrich, Parsons and Sewall. I realize that the mathematics of house location and the need for 5 clusters forced a lot of this but it was still aggravating to see, even with the proposed co-op additions of Chadbourne and Woodridge. I do not need to tell the CUL how wildly popular co-ops are with students. I think that new plan might meet with much larger student support if if featured a significant co-op increase. Moreover, with only 4 clusters, the loss of senior leadership in the clusters will be proportionately less.
6) On a personal note, allow me to say Hello to Will, Dave and Tom, all of my era at Williams. It seems like only yesterday . . .
7) On a historical note, allow me to remind the students on the committee that *generations* of Ephs before you have fought for co-ops. It is never that the CUL or the Administration is against them. It has just been, historically, that non-students have never realized how much students want co-ops and how much they benefit from them, from the chance to spend senior year living with a small set of close friends in an intimate setting. In my day, there were only 50 (?) spots.
Now is one of the rare occasions when the number of co-ops might be increased. I urge you to fight for the addition of more co-ops and the retention of those already present. You, the students of CUL, have a non-trivial amount of leverage at this point since the Administration’s highest priority is starting anchor housing with as much student support and enthusiasm as possible. I, and future Ephs, hope that you use this leverage to increase the number of co-ops.
Again, thanks to all of you for the time and effort you have put into this process over the last few years. I haven’t always agreed with your conclusions and I have, more than once, complained about the process, but I will never doubt your good intentions.
Regards,
Dave Kane ’88
| « KC Johnson: How Not to Diversify | Self Made Eph » |
2 Responses to “More Co-Ops”
Leave a Reply
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post
If a comment you submitted does not show up, please email us at eph at ephblog dot com. Please note that commenters are required to use a valid email address when submitting comments.
Jonathan Landsman says:
I actually disagree with you on this one. In my post-debate email excahnge with Dudley, the conversion of Goodrich, Parsons, and Sewall into dorm housing was one (the only) proposed change that I praised.
Regarding this decision solely: I believe it results in the loss or creation of 2 co-op beds. Either way, this is unimportant to me. What is important is that these houses are in prime locations for a regular dorm, central to campus and near Dodd dining hall. Anchor housing or not, the Dodd Quad is the least cohesive of the major “quad” areas, and I believe the holes of people of these co-ops that eat and socialize locally less are a contributor to this. Let students have to trade easy access to campus for co-op living.
On co-ops in general: I love free agency. I am, however, of a more tempered mind than to be gung-ho about co-ops. When I argued for free agency, I said that a lot of the “learning from communal living” goals that the CUL professes to serve with Anchor Housing would be served better under Free Agency, in which chance, geography, and student initiative already create and even force some “desired” interaction.
I could not extend this argument to co-ops. Surely they offer unique benefits, but are there benefits of living in a co-op that one cannot reap from living in an apartment on Hoxsey or Spring Street? Co-ops are not even cheaper. As I truly favor Free Agency as a good compromise between the autonomy of small, self-chosen groups and the connection students ought to have to their college, co-op concerns are, to me, secondary to dorms in any housing system.
David says:
The 2 bed increase comes from the addition of Charborne and Woodbridge (sp?). I agree that these should be co-ops. I just think that the others should stay (at least if demand for co-ops is still running at 200).
I am flexible about whether or not co-op students should be allowed on the meal plan or in dining halls. I think that the existence or not of these co-ops would have zero effect of the cohesiveness of the Dodd cluster. The Dodd cluster will not be cohesive. There is just no way. Whether or not Sewall is a cluster won’t effect things either way. In fact, you could probably make a case the other way, if we assume that all these co-op rooms would go to seniors. Better to force those seniors into the main Dodd building.
But, big picture, my point is strategic. If the students on campus want more co-op spaces, now is the time to make the pitch for it.
I don’t know why you see co-ops as “secondary.” Back in the day, they were very popular and very successful. Indeed, it often seems that seniors who lived in co-ops and off-campus look upon that year as one of their best on campus, the time when ties that will last a lifetime were forged. I see co-ops (and entries/JAs) as one of the aspects of Williams that is most wonderful and unique.
I think that you underestimate how hard it is to find a decent house for 10 people on Hoxsey. Or have things changed? And the College limits the number of people who can live off-campus.
Seniors who want to live intimately with their closest friends for their last year at Williams should be allowed to do so. It is good for them and, therefore, good for Williams. If there is demand for 200 (300?) such spots than the College should try to make that possible. And, historically, it has mainly been the lobbying and hard-work of generations of students that has gotten co-ops to where they are today.