Off-campus housing is a peculiar residential institution at Dartmouth. It is really the only place where the rights of the individual takes precedence over the rights of the group, whether it be the Dartmouth collective as a whole or smaller organizations with in it. Unlike the dorms, students are not subjugated to the will of the random computer draw, and unlike the Greek system the ability to receive housing is not based on acceptance into a group.
While the dominance of the individual is certainly the greatest strength of off campus housing, now it is appearing to become its greatest weakness as well. For the most part, it is left out of the College's residential discussions, as it should be, and the result is that there is no organization among off-campus students. There is no institutional voice telling the administration the virtues of off-campus living, so it is no surprise to me to see the administration completely forsaking the opinion of people that live off-campus as they buy 15 prominent off campus properties.
This brings me to the fourth principle of the Trustees infamous Residential and Social Life Initiative, the one that I think is the most cryptic and yet least discussed: "The number of students living off campus should be reduced."
Why? I believe President Wright said that he wants to provide housing for students who are "forced" to live off-campus. If there are people who want to live on campus but cannot, the College should try to get them housing.
But why affect the people who have chosen for themselves that they would rather live off campus? If people don't want to live in the dorms, they certainly shouldn't have to. This doesn't mean that we are trying to alienate ourselves from the rest of campus; we are still members of the Dartmouth community. Living off-campus has not prevented me from joining campus organizations. Who picked up the slack during the Greek black-out of Winter Carnival? That's right -- off-campus houses. While we may not be seen at Food Court eating dinner every night, I suggest that this is a problem more with the food there than with anti-social tendencies.
I'm sure that there are a large number of people who are sated with our dormitories, and I don't want to interefere with them. But I ask that we all accept that the dorms are not suitable for everyone. The diversity off-campus housing provides is important and useful to the student body. As the first principle of the Trustees says "There should be greater choice in residential living," off-campus housing is already providing greater choice, so the College should feel no need to interfere with it.
While I may not describe a typical off-campus experience, because there is no typical off-campus experience, I can tell of my experience. Living off-campus has been by far the most integral part of my development at Dartmouth. Forgive me for sounding corny, but it has helped my academic performance, while stimulating greater intellectual development outside of the classroom. I'm the type of person who functions best with a lot of personal space, the type of personal space that I just can't get in the dorms, especially as a sophomore. I found the space that I needed off-campus.
I'll be honest, my apartment is not the most beautiful place to live; the building is an old Catholic church haphazardly converted into a two-story apartment complex; the boiler in the basement has a tendency to spew out dangerous levels of carbon monoxide and, until recently, the back stair way was constructed out of cinder blocks. And yet there's not much that I would change in it (save for the carbon monoxide leaks), because it has character and more importantly, it has become my home. The seven of us who share our floor each have our own rooms, bigger and cheaper than the singles we could get on campus. We throw a couple of parties each term and, during the spring, we moved our kitchen table outside to eat fine dinners we cooked ourselves, drink cheap wine, and hold intellectual discussions.
I had planned to spend the rest of my time at Dartmouth living there, but now that's looking doubtful.
Why does the administration want to purchase these 15 properties? Certainly not to improve student life. These properties are already being used by students, and to all appearances the students who live there are very happy. The lack of discussion about off-campus housing during the debates on the Five Principles indicates the student body is not interested in changing it. If these properties are continued to be used for student housing (and if they aren't a bigger housing crunch than now is going to occur), then I don't see how they could be managed any differently from the rest of on campus housing. How could the College say that these properties are separate from the housing draw without making them affinity housing? Needless to say, the rents will increase to meet that of the rest of on campus living.
What I see happening is that they will end up much like the River apartments, and yet, by doing this much of the properties' utility to the student body is vanquished. They will only be available to the students with the best housing numbers, namely seniors and super seniors. These properties being bought are also the closest locations to campus. Sophomores who don't want to live in the dorms are either going to put up with the dorms, move into the Greek houses (something the administration expressedly doesn't want), or move into places inconveniently far away.
If the administration isn't doing it for the students, than what else could it be? For money, more control over the town, and more control over the students. These reasons might sound cynical, but they are the only ideas I can formulate. But should any of these reasons surprise us? The College has the opportunity to take more than $500,000 a year from rent on these properties; you know the administrators are salivating over that. In Monday's D, the College's director of real estate mentioned the impact these properties have on downtown, and the purchase of these properties supports the belief that the College feels a manifest destiny for the entire town. Finally, judging from their public statements, President Wright and Trustee Dentzer both seem to believe that although we students are adults, we don't have the ability to take care of ourselves and that the administration desperately needs to step in to save us.
Of course these are all my personal opinions and there is a distinct possibility, no matter how small, that they aren't true.
If the administration is really concerned first and foremost for the student body and our experiences at Dartmouth, it will cease in its attempts to buy these properties and allow them to be managed outside the College's sphere of influence, the way they have been managed for the benefit of the student body for decades. But if the College wants to forsake the student population in order to increase its power and wealth, then they should continue on their present path; I'll be glad that I'm only going to be here for two more years to watch it happen.
