Janu-Wary

In an effort to create a coordinated university-wide calendar, Interim President Derek C. Bok in 2007 approved a new month-long break between semesters at the College, known colloquially as J-Term and officially as Winter Break. This January marks the first time in recent history that, from Jan. 4 through Jan. 22, students will no longer be hunkering down in library carrels preparing for final exams. Instead, undergraduates will be pursuing self-directed activities on campus or will be required to vacate the premises. Unfortunately, that choice, which should rest with students, instead depends largely on the whims of a committee set up to grant approval to those interested in staying.

The committee will be comprised of Interim Dean of Advising Programs Inge-Lise Ameer alongside representatives from the Freshman Dean’s Office, Athletics Department, the Office of Student Life, the Facilities Maintenance Office, and three students—two members of the Undergraduate Council and one Peer Advising Fellow. We are pleased to see the College incorporating student input in the committee decision process. However, students should have also had greater say in actually outlining the requirements and the evaluative standards by which students will be allowed to stay. We also commend the College for making the Office of International Programs, Office of Career Services, Office of the Arts, Center for Public Interest Careers, and Phillip Brooks House Association available to help students find internships, travel-abroad opportunities and other activities.

Yet the proposed system of selectively excluding some students from housing during J-Term is misguided at best and dishonest at worst. The university’s current approach to J-Term housing seems overly and unnecessarily restrictive. Current guidelines suggest that only thesis writers with a compelling research need, students working in labs, international students, and members of 19 varsity sports teams have been categorized as groups likely guaranteed to be approved. This narrow categorization leaves out many other students who may have a strong reason for requiring housing. For example, those participating in community-service programs, those constrained by financial difficulty, and those participating in performing-arts groups—to name a few—seemingly have far less assurance of receiving housing.

The committee should look beyond categories so narrowly defined and provide all students with the opportunity to stay on campus and be productive. An obvious start would be to allow all thesis writers—with or without a compelling research need—to stay on campus in order to write and research without the distractions that forcing them to be at home may entail. The College should generally take a more accommodating stance in their review of submitted applications and provide students with more options. We agree that it is important that students have a reason to stay on campus; however, we wish to see this requirement be more broadly defined.

And while the limits on J-Term housing have been largely billed as a necessity of budget restrictions, similar to other cuts undertaken recently by the university, we sense that the primary reason for limiting housing during January actually stems from a very different set of concerns—namely, fear in the administration that students will misbehave without highly structured activities to occupy their time and without a full residential staff to monitor them. In April, Dean of Students Evelynn M. Hammonds said that after the decision was made not to provide January programming, administrators did not want idle students to remain on campus.

The marginal cost of keeping additional students beyond the current upper limit of 1,000 would not actually be very high. Especially if, for example, the College is already willing to heat the suite of a senior thesis writer doing research, while barring his roommate who would be writing a thesis but not doing research on campus. And while we question claims that Annenberg—the only dining hall that will be open—can only accommodate 1,000 students, if this is truly prohibitive, then the College should offer the possibility for students to remain without a meal plan to those willing to do so.

While concerns about the excessive partying and safety of an idling undergraduate population may be a valid reason for limiting housing to those “with a recognized and pre-approved need to be on campus,” as Hammonds stated in her recent e-mail, the College should still be more open about its motivations and when framing these decisions. If, as it seems, that costs are not the real issue, then every student with a good plan for doing something productive on campus during January should be allowed to stay on campus.