RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES COMMITTEE
In March 1994, the Board of Trustees asked the administration to present to the board a comprehensive policy regarding residential housing. The board specifically asked for this to be done before any future living-learning centers were presented to the board for adoption. In response to that request the Residential Communities Committee was established in January 1995. Its membership was chosen to be broadly representative of the Cornell community, including faculty, staff, alumni, and students (see Appendix A). The committee was asked to address the following issues:
· What should be the underlying philosophy of Cornell University's residential communities?
· To what extent should the residential experience contribute to and link with the educational mission of the university? If the answer is that it should be linked, how will we know when we have accomplished that connection?
· If freedom with responsibility is a fundamental value at Cornell, what implication does it have for our residential communities?
· How can the living arrangements and programs contribute to the creation of community at Cornell?
Once the broad philosophy that will guide the residential life and education program is defined, the committee was asked to outline the policies that should govern the:
· Extent to which the university should provide on-campus housing for its students.
· Process by which students, especially first year students at Cornell, will be assigned to their living space.
· Design and creation of programs and themes within the residence halls and their integration with the overall residential communities program.
· Involvement of faculty in the residential education program.
· Relationship of the Greek system to the residential life and education offerings and the educational mission of the university.
· Selection and training programs for residence advisors and residence hall directors.
In the report that follows, the committee provides its perspective on these issues. It begins with a brief description of the process used in arriving at these conclusions. The committee then addresses the broad philosophic issues identified in the charge to the committee and presents a policy to guide Cornell's residential program. From this policy a number of principles, followed by specific recommendations in various areas of campus life as called for in the charge, are presented.
The committee has viewed itself as broadly representing the Cornell community and began its deliberations by becoming as informed as possible about the variety of views concerning residential policy on campus. Toward this end, the committee met with and obtained information from a wide variety of groups and individuals including students in various types of residence halls, graduate and professional students, student staff, professional staff, faculty, administrators, parents, and alumni. The complete list of contacts is shown in Appendix B. In addition, the committee collected considerable data about current residential policy and practice and previous examinations of residential policy.
The committee divided into three subcommittees: (1) assignment to campus housing and the living environment; (2) program houses and the Greek system, and (3) faculty programs and staffing. The full committee met biweekly during the spring of 1995 and for a full day during the 1995 summer. In addition, each subcommittee met several times to discuss their respective areas.
The committee presented a draft report to Vice President Susan Murphy in the fall. Vice President Murphy released it to the Cornell community and asked for broad discussion and comment during the month of October 1995. Members of the committee met with various constituencies in the Cornell community, including trustees, alumni, students, residents of program houses, RAs, Campus Life staff, and faculty. A complete list of meetings is shown in Appendix B. In addition to meeting with members of the Cornell community, the committee encouraged and received letters and comments via e-mail.
The committee has been impressed with the thoughtful discussion that has arisen as a result of the draft report. The committee listened carefully to this discussion, which included a discussion of the first year experience report as well as its own draft report. In response to this discussion, the committee has re-drafted its report.
II. RESIDENTIAL LIFE PHILOSOPHY
Cornell has been committed to providing on-campus housing to all freshmen, and the committee recommends continuing this practice. Because of this commitment, the committee focused its attention on freshman students and their need for a supportive environment from which they can explore the opportunities available to them at Cornell. Freshmen are embarking on a major change in their lives. Provision of on-campus housing for freshmen relieves them of the need to find adequate and appropriate housing for this transitional year in their lives and provides easy access to the academic and social activities of Cornell. Moreover, freshmen are faced with a series of common issues. They are in a new environment and very often on their own for the first time. Their confidence level is being challenged in ways unfamiliar to them. The type of support needed to bridge the transition from home to college is in some ways unique to freshmen. (To some extent transfer students also experience similar circumstances.) At the same time, there is a strong tradition of choice at Cornell. We see this tradition exhibited throughout the institution, including choices of areas of academic study, wide choices of activities in which to participate, and choices of housing arrangements.
A common theme in the committee's discussions with members of the Cornell community is the importance of a sense of community in supporting freshmen as they begin their academic careers. The need for this sense of community is widely acknowledged as desirable by all members of the Cornell community. It is one of the characteristics of the program houses most valued by program house residents. It is one of the characteristics of Greek letter organizations that makes them attractive to students. The students living in the cooperatives also focus on this as one of the most important aspects of these living arrangements. It is clear to the committee that a residential experience which provides a supportive community in which freshman students feel some investment and in which upperclass student mentorship plays some role offers freshmen the best opportunity for success at Cornell. Such a community offers students the opportunity to become active members of the larger Cornell community, participating in a broad range of activities and groups, always with the supportive residential community as a base. The Residential Communities Committee strongly supports the creation of these small, supportive residential communities throughout the residence halls at Cornell. It is this variety of residential communities from which the larger Cornell community is created. Indeed, the Cornell community can be thought of as layers of individual communities that come together to create the full richness and diversity of the larger Cornell community.
In the committee's deliberations it became clear that there are distinct differences between the environments of North and West Campus. Some of these are due to the architecture of the buildings, the populations that dominate these areas, and the reputations that these areas have established. In the view of the committee, one goal of housing policy at Cornell should be to reduce the influence of geography in residential life at Cornell. The committee believes that the strong emphasis in this report on the creation of community will have this effect. Appendix C provides a listing of suggestions and ideas that may be helpful in reaching this goal.
There is broad agreement that there is a unique Cornell community, which is created from a mosaic of smaller, supportive communities. Some of these smaller communities arise in living units, others in colleges, still others in student organizations and activities. Each student finds the Cornell experience in his or her participation in these overlapping communities. The larger community is enriched by the diversity and by the links across each of the individual communities. The committee sees this as a strength of Cornell which should be enhanced. One important contributing factor to this Cornell experience is the sense of community students have in their residential unit, which should offer support to students and link the student's residential experience to their academic experience.
Much of the discussion of the draft report, and of the Residential Communities Committee itself, has been about the essential elements necessary for the creation of community. The elements identified by the committee are (1) some upperclass students to act as mentors and leaders in the living unit; (2) small in size so that a supportive community can exist; (3) a governance structure and program in which students are invested; (4) faculty who can help mentor students and participate in the building of community and the links of the community to the academic life of the university. In addition, while not an essential element, the committee believes that an important aspect of a living unit could be a common focus which gathers students who have similar interests. Each of these characteristics is described below.
(1) Upperclass students are very important as mentors and leaders in a community and as the keepers of the continuing history of the community and its traditions. Upperclass students can be part of the community because they choose to live in the unit. But some of the physical space available is sufficiently unattractive to upperclass students that they may be unwilling to live in these units, despite the attractiveness of the program (see Appendix D, Background Information). This may be particularly true of the corridor style Class Halls on West Campus. To the extent this is the case, an upperclass presence may depend on the presence of RAs. If so, the committee urges an increase in the RA staff to assure that enough upperclass students are available to provide the mentorship necessary for the creation of the community. This may imply that some buildings have substantially more RA staff than others. The committee also believes that there should be a critical mass of freshmen in each living unit so that freshmen meet each other, and so that programs specifically for freshman issues can be effective.
(2) The size of the community must be consistent with the creation of a supportive community. One aspect of program houses that makes them manageable is that they typically contain fewer than 140 students. Only Just About Music and Risley Residential College exceed this number. Many of the other residence halls have a much larger capacity. The larger the residence hall, the more difficult it is to create a strong and vital community. Residence halls may contain several potential communities, separated by floor or wing. The committee urges that the size of these communities be limited in order to provide the best possible opportunity for success.
(3) Students should be invested in the program and the community of which they are a part. In order to assure this, students should actively participate in governance of their communities and in programming and activities surrounding their focus. Students, with the advice and consultation of faculty and staff involved in the community, should manage the programming resources. Students could be encouraged to participate in retreats and community-building activities. Students should participate in forming the rules by which they live and help in determining sanctions when these rules are broken.
(4) Each community should have several faculty fellows (and/or faculty-in-residence) affiliated with the community. These faculty fellows should be chosen because of their interest in the focus of the community. It should be the responsibility of the faculty to participate actively in the programming of the community. Faculty should be encouraged to attend community meetings and retreats. Faculty should provide a link between the academic life of the university and the residential life of the students.
(5) The committee believes that experimentation with providing foci for some of these communities should be done. A common focus will gather students who have similar interests. This common interest offers a focus for programming and allows students to develop some investment in the creation and maintenance of the community. These foci can be determined in advance and provided to prospective students as they decide their housing choices. The committee is uncertain about the extent to which these foci can be determined after students arrive on campus. Experimentation on this issue might be helpful.
The committee envisions three types of communities from which students can choose. One is the program house, which is distinguished by its institutional permanence, its strong and explicit links with academic programs on campus, its active associate membership, and its commitment to outreach throughout the campus. These characteristics are discussed in greater detail below. A second is the theme community. Like the program houses, these communities have an explicit focus. However, the focus of a community may or may not be directly linked to academic programs. For example, a community focusing on skiing or on community service might be created. In addition, the foci of these communities might be suggested by students but also might be generated by Community Development or the Dean of Students. Hence, these communities are created in a different way from the program houses. As a result, these communities might not have the same institutional permanence, active associate membership, or outreach activities that are expected of the program houses. A third type of community is a small living community with no specific focus, but which shares the remaining characteristics described above with the other types of communities. Students might choose to be assigned to these communities based on a lifestyle survey.
The committee believes that a lifestyle survey, with information on such matters as sleeping habits, preferences in music, etc., should be utilized to match roommates in residence halls. This information will help minimize conflict between roommates. In addition, it could be important in assigning students who choose to be located in the communities without an explicit focus.
One function of a theme or small community will be to provide an interest focus rather than a geographic focus for students' residential choices thus helping to reduce some of the differences between North and West campus.
The committee believes that the establishment of these communities in the residence halls will substantially contribute to the freshman experience and to the larger Cornell community. However, it will require resources. Additional student staff, more resources for community building activities, adjustment in some of the physical space available, and additional faculty fellows and faculty-in-residence will be required to establish these communities. The committee believes strongly that it is not desirable to increase on-campus housing rates as the primary and certainly not the sole way of financing these recommendations. Residence hall rates are already high relative to our competitors and relative to other housing options for students in Ithaca. Some of these changes may be one-time-only costs that might be financed through specific gifts. Others of these changes should be viewed as enhancing the educational experience at Cornell in ways that might justify the use of tuition dollars.
The process for creating these theme communities will differ from the process for creating the program houses because these theme houses are not expected to be as permanent as program houses. The committee envisions the process to be one which is developed by Campus Life. Theme communities should be developed with the characteristics identified earlier. These include (1) having sufficient upperclass students, either residents or staff, to offer mentoring and leadership to the community; (2) being relatively small; (3) having student involvement in governance and program planning in order to generate a sense of investment in the community among residents; (4) having faculty fellows with an interest in the theme involved in the programs and community.
The committee received much comment about program houses at Cornell. Clearly the residents of program houses regard them as an important element in their success at Cornell. Students report that program houses engender a sense of community that frequently provides the primary basis for support for the residents. The strong community and the integration of the academic and residential aspects of life at Cornell are characteristics of the program houses that serve as the model for the recommendation of the creation of living communities throughout the residence halls. One of these is the program house. The program house is distinguished from the theme communities and small living communities is several ways. First, program houses are expected to have explicit and clear links with academic programs on campus. Because existing program houses were created in a variety of ways, they do not all have such links. However, the committee believes that new program houses should have such links specified. Existing program houses, over time, should nurture and develop such links. Second, most program houses have an active group of "associate members." Although this status does not officially exist among program houses, many of the members of program houses report that even after students move to other living arrangements, they often return to participate in the program house activities. New program houses should establish a category called "associate members" and recognize their involvement. Third, program houses should have a strong commitment to outreach. Outreach activities should contribute to the education and creation of the larger Cornell community. Outreach activities might involve the other residential communities or the broader Cornell community. Finally, these earlier distinctions between program houses and theme communities contribute to the greater institutional permanence of program houses. While a theme community might be the first stage in the creation of a program house, the program house has established its strong community support and longevity.
Creation of New Program Houses
The committee supports and encourages the creation of new program houses. Because program houses focus on a particular academic topic, it is important to have strong faculty participation in program houses. Program houses should have an explicit affiliation with an academic department or program and clearly-stated educational objectives. The criteria and characteristics of new program houses recommended below are intended to further this relationship.
· New program houses must relate to an academic department or program in which there is faculty interest, expertise, and support for the program.
· An advisory committee for each house comprised of students from the house, faculty with substantive interests in the theme of the house, and the residence hall director. The advisory committee provides educational direction for the house, provides consultation on the creation and implementation of policies governing the program house, provides support and advice for the programs, and promotes continuity over time.
· Each program house will have a group of faculty fellows who have special interests and expertise in the theme of the house. These faculty fellows should visit the house frequently to meet and talk with students, should attend programs, and have meals with student residents.
· Each program house will provide an educational plan for each year, identifying the goals of the program and the events intended to meet these goals. Outreach to other parts of the Cornell community should be part of this plan. In addition, plans for the involvement of faculty fellows and faculty advisors should be part of the educational plan.
· There should be an explicit mechanism by which program houses are decommissioned when the interest and vitality of the program house wanes.
The committee recommends that the appropriate student, faculty, and university governance bodies develop and adopt a process for establishing and decommissioning program houses. This procedure could include the establishment of a theme community as a first step. The Student Assembly Committee on Residence Life has drafted a procedure to follow in approving new program houses which should be considered by the campus community.
Fraternities and sororities have been an important part of the Cornell community for over a hundred years, and the committee recognizes the strong influence the Greek system has on both the undergraduate experience and the Cornell community at large. Undergraduates searching for a sense of identity and purpose find comfort and support in the Greek system. By uniting undergraduates with common values and interests, Greek life fosters the mentoring and student-initiated community building that the committee finds so vital to the undergraduate experience. Greek organizations facilitate the growth and development of students within supportive environments by creating opportunities for leadership and teamwork. Those affiliated with the Greek system report that through Greek organizations they actually broaden their ties to other university groups through cooperative programming and community agencies through philanthropy. The committee advocates continued efforts in both areas of campus outreach and community service in order to facilitate a stronger sense of community at Cornell.
While fraternities and sororities are self-governing organizations, they must adhere to the policies and procedures established by their national charters, constitutions, by-laws, and standing rules as well as those rules and regulations governing campus life. The Office of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs, the Panhellenic Council, Interfraternity Council, and the Africana and Latino Greek Letter Council are responsible for ensuring the integrity of the Greek system at Cornell and preserving it as a valuable undergraduate residential option. The committee recognizes that the recently-appointed Fraternity and Sorority Advisory Council should continue to take initiatives to bring stronger university, undergraduate, and alumni leadership to the Greek system. The committee believes that the nature of the issues concerning rush, pledging, and adherence to the University Alcohol Policy should be undertaken by the Fraternity and Sorority Advisory Council, and the committee offers the following ideas for consideration:
(1) The existing fraternity and sorority rules regarding access of Greek organizations to residence halls should be thoroughly reviewed and enforced to assure that rush is conducted fairly, efficiently, and responsibly. This review should include examination of informal and formal rush guidelines and pay special attention to safe and responsible conduct consistent with the University Alcohol Policy. The committee heard evidence to suggest that existing rules were not being followed and/or enforced.
(2) Historically, the West Campus residence halls at Cornell were all-male, and consequently fraternities developed in the vicinity of West Campus. Similarly, the North Campus dormitories were primarily female, and therefore, the sororities tended to concentrate on North Campus. Because of these inherited geographic realities, the Interfraternity Council, Panhellenic Council, and Africana and Latino Greek Letter Council should place special emphasis on equal attention and access to North and West Campus in regard to their rush protocol and activities. The committee heard comments indicating that fraternities were not rushing North and West Campus equally.
(3) The committee recommends the development of a data base for the Greek system including information pertaining to membership and fees. The data base would provide the Office of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs with more accurate information on composition of the undergraduate Greek population and provide a means of keeping track of alumni for support and guidance. Furthermore, with better information on fees for house operation and maintenance, the Office of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs could provide more guidance to chapters in ensuring the chapter house as a viable residential option.
(4) The renewed support of the Greek system at Cornell envisions a stronger linkage among undergraduates, alumni, faculty, and Cornell administrators. It aims to provide leadership and resources necessary to make the Greek experience as enriching as possible and one that is completely compatible with the university's mission to better integrate academic and residential life. With this in mind, the committee recommends that the Greek system expand and enhance its Faculty Fellow program to include more chapters in this valuable enterprise. Alumni and administrators at Cornell could also develop closer relationships with individual chapters to strengthen community ties.
(5) The committee recognizes the value of self-governance and the current efforts by the Associate Dean in the Office of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs to preserve justice and manage change within the Greek system through the development of a number of new initiatives. The committee urges the Greek system to utilize the recommendations of the current Strategic Planning Committee made up of professional institutional planners, students, and faculty in order to preserve student-initiated and managed commitment to promoting the mission of Greek life. Both the newly-revised joint Panhellenic Council and Interfraternity Council Judicial Board as well as the implementation of the new alcohol policy through the Social Responsibility Committee should be reviewed on a continual basis to ensure their effectiveness. Furthermore, the committee encourages improving relations among the Greek system, university administrators, and local officials through groups like the newly-formed Community Outreach Task Force. The committee believes that all of these efforts imbue students with a greater sense of ownership and dedication to creating and preserving community, which is fundamental to the undergraduate experience at Cornell.
(6) The committee believes that the support of professional and student staff in the residence halls is particularly important for freshmen and therefore recommends that the practice of freshmen not residing in fraternities and sororities continue.
(7) Existing fraternity and sorority procedures for rendering a house inactive should be implemented when membership wanes.
An essential element in the formation of the communities described above is a strong tie between the academic life and the residential environment. This link should be supported and expanded. Central to doing this is clarification, expansion, and increased visibility of the faculty programs. In addition, because the faculty will play an important role in the creation of the residential communities, both the faculty-in-residence program and the faculty fellows program should be substantially increased. Appendix E provides a detailed discussion of the faculty programs, governance, and relationships to the residence halls. The major points are summarized below.
· The committee recommends that faculty-in-residence positions be held by tenured faculty. The tenure requirement for faculty-in-residence is intended to reinforce a commitment to recruit senior members of the faculty to these appointments, reflects the fact that being a faculty-in-residence is a greater time commitment than being a faculty fellow, and the reality that time spent on faculty-in-residence activities does not carry much weight in the promotion decisions of junior faculty. In addition, tenured faculty have a commitment to the teaching and research activities of the university that makes a research university like Cornell unique. The involvement in research that tenured faculty can bring to their activities as faculty-in-residence to enrich the faculty-student interaction is another dimension the committee wishes to promote with this program. The committee recommends that the faculty fellows program continue to recruit tenured and non-tenured faculty, lecturers, and adjunct faculty, and active service as a faculty fellow should receive substantial consideration in tenure decisions.
· The goals and expectations of faculty fellow and faculty-in-residence positions should be made explicit, and support to faculty in meeting these expectations should be provided.
· Faculty fellow and faculty-in-residence interaction with all students, regardless of living arrangements, should be encouraged. This means establishing a source of funding to supplement the funding provided through housing fees. The colleges should be asked for support of these activities, and endowment funds should be sought. Faculty-in-residence positions in particular should be endowed.
· The relationship between faculty fellows and faculty-in-residence and Campus Life staff should be clarified. Residence hall directors should be given clear and consistent feedback and training concerning their roles in these programs. Resident advisors and program assistants should have clear expectations about their faculty-related activities.
· Consideration should be given to the reorganization of the governance and administrative structure of the faculty programs. Specifically, consideration should be given to the establishment of a separate program office with a faculty member appointed part-time to direct the office. Under such a model, the program would have its own budget, and the director would report to the vice-president. An advisory board made up of faculty, Campus Life staff, and students would continue to provide oversight. A full-time administrative manager would be necessary, and close ties to Campus Life would need to be maintained.
· The faculty programs should be made more visible to students, other faculty, and the greater community. The faculty programs should play a central role in activities surrounding the First Year Experience.
· Active teaching and research faculty should be recruited into these programs. Deans should be contacted to make nominations. Selection of faculty should require an application with the faculty describing their interest in the program, their experience, and their personal goals.
· Information about the program for the purposes of evaluation and making the program more visible should be collected regularly.
VII. RELATIONSHIP OF RESIDENCE LIFE AND ACADEMIC LIFE
The committee believes it is important to tie academic life and residence life together in many more ways than is done currently. The recommendations about faculty involvement in the living communities are designed to do this. In addition, it is important to find other ways of connecting residence and academic life. It is important for the Dean of Students office to be clearly related to residence life. Both Campus Life and the Dean of Students Office are involved in programming for freshmen during orientation and throughout the year. These activities should be coordinated so that they can be as effective as possible.
Often problems that surface in residence halls have academic implications for the students. Similarly, academic problems can manifest themselves in the residential communities. The disconnect that currently exists between these two parts of the university can make it difficult to address student problems in the most effective ways. Moreover, the separation between these parts of student life can lead to a compartmentalization of student life that frustrates student understanding of immersion in the life of the mind. Steps to integrate and coordinate academic and residential student services need to be taken.
The committee believes that the links between the academic and residential life of the university can be enhanced by urging the professional staff to become more involved and aware of the academic life of the university. Residence hall directors should be encouraged to participate in the academic life of the Cornell community. Residence hall directors should know faculty and make connections with faculty who can enhance residential programs. Residence hall directors should have closer relationships with the student services staffs in the various colleges. A network of such personnel should be established to make these connections easier.
If the recommendation of the committee is adopted, future residence halls should be constructed that will facilitate the creation of the communities described. The salient characteristics are that the halls be attractive to both freshman and upperclass students and that they be constructed to be sufficiently small to be consistent with the communities described. In addition, future construction should allow faculty interaction with the student communities, probably including additional faculty-in-residence locations.
One aspect of the current residential environment that deserves comment is the distinction between North Campus and West Campus. The differences between these two locations are significant. They result from a number of forces, some of which are identified herein. The committee believes that the great disparity between these two locations is undesirable. This report offers a specific recommendation about the creation of communities throughout the residence halls. The committee believes that if these recommendations are implemented, many of the undesirable aspects of the differences between North and West Campus will be diminished.
The committee believes that the creation of the communities described makes the most of the long tradition of choice which is highly valued at Cornell. In addition, it makes available to all students when they arrive the best aspects of the Cornell community. It also provides a strong base from which students can choose and develop their particular niches at Cornell.
The committee expects that the creation of these communities will take time, resources, staff training, and faculty input. The committee proposes that an evaluation of these changes be planned for no later than five years after implementation begins. The evaluation should involve faculty, staff, alumni, and student discussion about the extent to which the supportive communities envisioned herein have been realized.