Program Houses give students chance to apply what is learned

The Program House Area Response to the Long Range Planning Report December 7 1396

(These comments originated from a meeting held by Program House RCs to discuss the Long Range Planning Report and its effects on the houses.)

We the RCs of the Program House Area strongly support the idea of "Learning through Living" which is embodied in the Program House concept. The Program Houses give students valuable chances to translate what they learn in the classroom into actual reality. They are some of the few places that give students these opportunities.

Our houses are built around common interests which we see as the foundation of true community. It is our students' desire to engage these issues grapple with charged subjects, and continually question their own beliefs which leads to real Earning and personal growth. The Program Houses provide a valuable dynamic space where students learn to be committed and effective student leaders.

The points which follow came up during discussion. They are loosely grouped in no particular order.

l. We are concerned that the Program Houses are seen as intimidating. While we hold numerous campus-wide events all year long we feel that it is excessive of some people to expect us to perform outreach to "educate" others about our areas of concern. The burden we feel should be on students to actively take part in educating themselves utilizing the resources that are available. Traditional dorms are not given the same burden of selling their acceptability to the larger campus.

2.Program Houses have been criticized as being "too political". The assumption here is that living spaces should not be political. We choose to think that politics comes about from having an active and interactive community that is committed to concrete goals. That we are not apathetic shoud not be held against us. We suggest that there is a tacit unspoken political agenda of traditional dorms: that is to promote individual concerns over communal ones.

3. In reading the report we came across the idea that Program Houses promote the "balkanization" of the student body by segregating students. We strongly disagree with this statement and would like to suggest an alternative view of diversity. Diversity to us is not the sprinkling of students of color around campus.

4. The report expressed doubts as to the missions of the Program Houses and whether they are being met. While each house has its own missions and goals we all share a common trait: to serve as locus around which students may engage each other about topics of interest. The overwhelming popularity of the Program Houses attests to the fact that a majority of residents feel their needs are being met. Our mission simply is to serve as a space where students may learn through living.

5. We feel the Program Houses sometimes serve as scapegoats for people's discontent about identity politics on this campus. Eliminating the Program Houses will not magically solve differences between people. There are other "program" dorms on this campus--Zeke, East Quiet Hall, Barrows Freshman Dorm--which do not receive the same criticisms simply because they do not use culture or gender as a common interest around which to structure living.

6. We are concerned about comments that would suggest not allowing first-year students to live in Program Houses. We feel that first year students are nurtured and supported in Program Houses in ways that are unlikely to happen in dorms. Besides allowing them access to upperclass students and their knowledge Program Houses also give students a definite role and a feeling of importance within the community. In some cases other residents of a particular Program House may be most of a very small number of people on campus who can communicate effectively with certain first year students at all. We see the suggestion of a first year ban as an indirect attempt to weaken the Program House system and are uncomfortable with the embedded suggestion that Program Houses somehow "indoctrinate" first year students. We should be increasing student living options not reducing them.

7. We recognize that in pluralistic societies people get together based on personal preferences. This is a reality that is reflected in the Program House system. However this is not "self-segregation" but rather an attempt to learn more about ourselves and each other in the ways that we are both similar and different. The perception that Program Houses serve to amass students who are "all the same" (for example African American Students, students of color, Jewish students, female students, students who all study the same subject, etc.) ignores the diversity of experience among us and distills our complex choices and personalities down to mere traits.

8. Finally we wish to say that while recognizing the aforementioned diversity in the missions and goals of the various Houses we see an essential unity between us a unity based on the idea behind the establishment of the Program Houses and based also on the very fact of those Houses' existence. This unity joins us together in a way which overcomes the pluralistic natures of our individual programs making one Program House similar to every other Program House in a way which is simply not possible in relation to a standard dormitory. The success of one program contributes to the success of all programs the threats implicit in the Long-range Planning Document despite the fact that they may be aimed only at certain of the Houses among us are threats to all of the Houses.

The Program House Area RCs

Sergio Acevedo, Aaron Boster*, Jeff Cabusao*, Tisha Chung, Lynne Lamontagne Drouin, Julian Fox*, Steve Jackson, Josh Kizner, Cathy Lopez*, Ben Nyblade, Andreas Pape, Joy Williams.

*Not present at initial meeting but approved comments later.