Choose an area:

« back to columns
« back to spring 2000 columns

Res. life policies drive students away

This week I had a change of heart.

I was all set to write an uplifting column praising Residence Life for buckling down and networking the dorms by the summer of 2001. I was going to write about how well Residence Life used their resources and logic to get such a difficult task accomplished.

But, alas, Residence Life has brought me back down to Earth. Their attempt to show sincerity after the Tau Kappa Epsilon fire has clearly clouded their judgment and sense of logic.

I, along with the over 360 other residents of Montgomery Apartments, got a letter Tuesday from Tom Kresch, associate director of Residence Life. In this carefully worded prose, Kresch told me how thoughtful Residence Life has been with their residents. He spoke of how generous Residence Life had been in providing a microwave for my apartment—a microwave, which in 1989, cost $250, according to Kresch.

But now, my microwave, along with 95 of its brethren, had "reached the end of their useful life," Kresch said. Granted, an 11 year-old microwave has very near reached the end of its life. But, since I am still able to microwave popcorn and every meal that I bring back to my room from campus dining, I consider my weary old microwave to still be working.

However, because they are "just too costly to keep repairing," all of the microwaves are being removed from Montgomery Apartments at the end of the semester.

As the owners of my microwave, Residence Life does indeed have a right to do this—don't get me wrong. I was hoping, though, that instead Residence Life would use the intelligence that have to reevaluate their plan to cut costs.

If Residence Life decides to not replace any broken microwaves because it would be too costly, that is perfectly logical. But to remove a perfectly functional microwave from an apartment borders on insanity, if not utter stupidity. Since microwaves are "an efficient way to cook and keep electric bills down," according to Kresch, shouldn't Residence Life also be thinking about the logic behind removing such energy-saving devices?

With my microwave gone at the end of the semester and a toaster oven as a fire hazard, what else can I do to warm up food? I certainly couldn't use the energy-inefficient oven, which has burned more food than a hundred toaster ovens. My only recourse is to blow warm air over my food, hoping upon hope that it will heat up. But then again, if I blow too much hot air over my food, I could be considered a fire hazard, and I wouldn't want that.

Again, once my microwave breaks, I have no problem replacing it myself—that's a decision that Residence Life has made, and it makes sense to me. But why toss away 95 good, working microwaves? Beyond being completely illogical, it's just plain wasteful.

Even though this wasn't an "easy decision, … there will be other more pressing things that will need attention at the apartments for which the [money that would have been used to repair the microwaves] will be used," Kresch said.

Like what? More useless inspections?

After the TKE fire, Residence Life seemed to grow a heart.

Funny, I don't remember them caring that my apartment was safe from fire hazards before the TKE fire. In fact, I could have been hoarding oily rags with a match hanging over them for months, and Residence Life wouldn't have cared a bit. It's only when they have to put on the public image of being "safety conscious" that we have to deal with these intrusive searches.

Does Residence Life honestly think that we can't tell that the only thing they care about is saving face in the public eye? It's very apparent to me. Otherwise, I would have had my apartment ransacked much more often in the interest of fire safety.

What might they be looking for in these so-called safety-oriented inspections? Oily rags? Our own fireplace? Well sure, but as they pass the oily rags, I'll be sure to get a warning for violating one of the seemingly thousand regulations that Residence Life has put in place to make sure that they can get rid of anyone, anytime, for anything.

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that my sister wants to visit me and stay overnight for the evening some weekend. According to the Montgomery Apartment Handbook, page 34, guests "may only stay in an apartment of students of the same sex." But why just stop there? Why doesn't Residence Life put a rule in place to say that persons of the opposite sex are not even allowed into your apartment, if even just for dinner? Honestly, if we start regulating morality at a public university, we are sliding down a rather slippery slope.

Beyond finding my illegal sister in my apartment, what else would constitute a violation? Rubber garbage cans, according to page 26. In case you didn't know, that's a fire hazard.

I'm sure that Residence Life will find fit to look beyond the biggest fire hazard of all in my apartment. The oily rags? The forks I stuck in my now-fading microwave? Nope.

They will look past the heater on our walls. As long as it's above 50 degrees, there's no need to use this university-supplied fire hazard. But if it ever becomes winter, which it's just bound to do, I am going to have to use my university-provided heater to warm my apartment.

Why is this a fire hazard? I could tell you, but I'd rather show you the laundry basket and shirt that were burned without ever touching the heater. God help us if we happen to let a piece of paper drop near the thing. While paper isn't currently a fire hazard, it could rather easily start a fire with the amount of heat the heater gives off.

What other options will students have to stay out of the waiting hands of Residence Life? Well, if Town Councilman Charles Housenick has his way, there won't be many options left.

Town Councilman Charles Housenick recently caused some local controversy by asking the town to curb the amount of students living off campus. Problems with old homes, discourteous students and a general lack of parking were cited as problems with all the students living downtown.

While I can try to sympathize with Housenick's plight, all I see is shortsightedness in his statement. Even if we were to concede his points, he has not combated the problem. What he and the rest of the Town Council need to look at is why students are living off campus. What they should be looking at is Residence Life.

I'd invite Housenick to take a gander at the Pilot or any Residence Life handbook. In only a few short minutes, he'd wonder if we had reverted back to time of dorm mothers and curfews. With cost increases for students living on campus, it makes more sense financially for students to move off campus.

Maybe instead of blaming the university for not providing enough housing, Housenick should look at the real problem: the management of the facilities by Residence Life. After all, at least if I lived downtown, no one could take away my microwave.