When it comes to university housing, it seems rising upperclassmen has pulled the short straw. In order to cope with the drastic shortage of on-campus housing, AU Housing and Dining Programs have decided to institute an exhaustive list of changes including limiting beds available to rising juniors and seniors to a randomly assigned 400. By the time these are fully implemented, Letts Hall will be a freshman-only dorm, Hughes will the designated honors hall and housing on campus reserved for upperclassmen will be a rare find.
Despite the angst this development has and will continue to cause, The Eagle recognizes these changes are ultimately necessary - irritating, but needed nonetheless. These short-term alterations must be made if AU is to expand to accommodate the increased demand for housing. Moreover, it is important to realize that these changes reflect not only a physical expansion, but also a beneficial expansion of the reputation of our school. More housing is needed because more students want to attend and remain at AU. In order to sustain this progress, new students should be accommodated. At this stage, it seems that Housing and Dining Director Chris Moody has put forth a comprehensive and well-conceived plan to carry the school over until an additional housing complex can be constructed.
Still, the perplexed and - at times - angry reactions from students are understandable. Much of this pushback stems from Housing and Dining’s blunt delivery of the news. In a tactless manner that AU students have come to expect from school officials, the university community was alerted of the change by a brief e-mail less than two weeks before the beginning of the spring semester. With the housing deadline of Feb. 1 quickly approaching, students now must quickly alter their housing plans, lest they join the nearly 350 upperclassmen expected to be excluded from on-campus housing. Clearly, an earlier or more long-term notice could have led to an easier transition.
It is true that Housing and Dining led several focus groups to assure that students were consulted in the change. Yet, these too left something to be desired. Despite being the most affected demographic, upperclassmen were not specifically targeted to be included. And while the numerous planned information sessions will certainly assuage student concerns, the fact that they occur ex post facto leaves a sour taste in the mouths of many.
In the end, the success of this effort leans on Housing and Dining’s genuine ear for student input. We implore Moody and the administration to sincerely listen to and address student concerns by adjusting the proposed plans as needed. To be sure: These changes are needed. These changes are appropriate. But mistakes made in the development and release of the plan must be acknowledged and avoided if it is to be accomplished.
