*Sarah Rose Gruszecki is a current floor governor in Brandford House.
Over the past decade, The Office of Residential Education and Living has made exceptional strides in serving the needs of our community. Additional house staff positions have been established to best support the needs of students and the highly successful Residential Education Fellows (or REF) program provides opportunities for students to engage with their professors and peers to discuss challenges facing our campus and world. The implementation of the College’s gender inclusive bathrooms and housing policies are also illustrative of the College’s progressive values. In my time as a floor governor, it has become increasingly apparent that both the professional Residential Life staff and my student-staff peers are deeply invested in the well-being of students and their experiences inside the residence halls and out. However, in order to provide students with truly meaningful residential experiences, we must advocate for a physical renewal of our residential spaces.
In a recent interview with Sara Rothenberger, the Director of Residential Education and Living, Rothenberger emphasized that when compared to the offerings of our peer schools, our residential spaces continue to lag vastly behind. While our houses on campus, dominated primarily by singles, may have served a relevant purpose in previous decades the structures now remain outdated and disconnected from the needs of the general student body.
Many students, especially upperclassmen, have expressed frustrations by the limited options for apartment and suite-style housing which lend to a more independent living experience. By the time they reach senior year, most students no longer wish to live in a traditional residence hall and desire an environment where they are able to live with others in a community while still maintaining a sense of independence in a space that better reflects the real world. Students who spend years living in single rooms and eating in dining halls aren’t exactly becoming self-sufficient and well-prepared for the realities of post-college life.
The obstacles facing Residential Life, however, are not just limited to the desires of students; residence halls also frequently neglect the rights and needs of individuals with documented disabilities. Amongst all of the houses on campus, the six residential halls in the Plex are the only ones currently containing elevators. The remaining houses on campus remain highly inaccessible to students with physical disabilities. This brings me to wonder how it is possible to identify as an “inclusive” institution which values full participation if we are virtually segregating students who require accessible housing options.
Accessibility is also a key concern to students with specific medical conditions who may require a kitchen within their living space. As Rothenberger described, “If there is a first year student who has a life-threatening food allergy and needs a place to cook safely, the only option we really have is Lazrus.” As an independent living space consisting of small single rooms, such a residence hall doesn’t exactly lend itself to a positive, enriching first-year experience.
While kitchens serve a clear role in providing for students with food allergies and other medical-related conditions, their implementation in other residence halls could positively impact our community on a much broader scale. As Rothenberger and I recently discussed, kitchens are not just places to cook, they represent community spaces that bring people together. As one of my residents described, “It’s nice having hot food ready in Harris after a long day, but there’s really nothing like making a home-cooked meal.” As one may already see on campus through Shabbat dinners in the Hillel House, or cultural events at Unity House, food serves as a powerful tool in uniting communities. While having catered meals from Paul’s Pasta and Mirch Masala for REF events are certainly appreciated, wouldn’t it be more meaningful to have students participate within the residence halls by making the meals themselves?
Although kitchens would serve as a valuable asset to campus houses, they should not act as the only community space in a residential hall; the common room carries an equally valuable weight. Although some students enjoy studying and relaxing in these shared spaces, the majority of them remain in desperate need of renovation. Many of the common rooms on campus, especially those in central campus, are unable to accommodate even half the number of residents who live in the house. Consider where your all-residence hall meetings take place. Six residence halls had their first full meeting of the year outside their dorms in either Cro or Blaustein (eight if you include that Morrison and Hamilton met in 62 West and 62 East, respectively.) In addition to their limiting size, these spaces do not exactly embody a welcoming and inviting place to come home to; with their stiff furniture and desk-like tables, many feel more like stuffy classrooms than homey, welcoming areas of living. Therefore, it is of little surprise that common rooms remain vastly underused throughout most houses on campus.
As a result of this absence in community spaces, students will often flock to other areas of campus outside of residential life to socialize with peers. As a college where off-campus housing is prohibited and 98% of student live on-campus, it seems illogical that residential spaces would serve such a minimal role in the Connecticut College social experience. As Dean Arcelus recently articulated, “Residence halls should be a core way in which students connect to the community and to their peers. They should play an integral role in the student experience.” While it is difficult to disagree with this statement, achieving this level of engagement within our residential house is challenging when physical spaces lend themselves more to isolation than shared community.
Furthermore, as our campus continues to envision the revised curriculum, it has become strikingly evident that we must utilize the residence halls as a space for intellectual engagement. “We need to be as innovative with our residential spaces as we have been in our curriculum development,” Rothenberger said. These aspirations have been accomplished partially through the REF program, where events and discussions are facilitated by floor governors and professors within the residence hall. While attendance for these events is often mixed (and largely dependent on whether food is being served), many students have found them to be beneficial in creating more accessible spaces to discuss controversial subjects with professors and peers. The first-year seminar program has also served as a recent vehicle to integrate academic and residential life. Through this pilot program, first-year students are often placed in specific residence halls based on their seminar courses. Although both of these programs show great potential to integrate academic and social life, their success may not be fully secured without physical residential spaces oriented towards meaningful community engagement.
Through discussions of inclusivity and full participation, accessibility and academic excellence, it has become evident that Residential Life lies at the heart of many critical issues facing the Connecticut College community. As we enter a new era of the College, it is imperative that residential life plays a key role in our vision for the future of this institution. In order to best-serve the needs of all members within our College, we must advocate for structural renovation in the houses that profoundly impact and shape our college experience. Residence halls have the opportunity to serve as intellectual, welcoming, community spaces; it’s about time our college pays attention to the critical investment they require.•
