Oct. 30, 2007 - a date that will forever change the university and its Office of Residence Life. This is when the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education posted a letter on its Web site calling for the immediate cessation of Residence Life activities in light of breaches of students' freedom of speech and other civil injustices.
After highlighting the cases of some university residents who felt wronged by actions taken by resident assistants in floor meetings and individual sessions, FIRE officials deemed Residence Life's curriculum manipulating and indoctrinating.
While the program may have had good intentions, its execution was inappropriate and culpability falls on Residence Life and on the resident assistants who allowed themselves to be used as unquestioning instruments of the program and its ideology.
Additionally, the type of language used by Residence Life staff and printed in its own educational materials promotes a position that is unacceptable at a public institution.
FIRE's statement claims multiple residents felt forced to attend the sessions and if they did not attend, they would have to meet with RAs individually to review what was addressed at the meeting. While vice president of student life Michael Gilbert repeatedly stated there were no mandatory attendance requirements, if residents feel they are being pressured into an activity that they do not agree or feel comfortable with, such pressure is unacceptable.
The Residence Life Web site states that the program strives to create a "living-learning environment characterized by a variety of programs and services that foster the integration of students' personal and academic development." This is a noble goal; however, freshmen are required to live on campus their first year, and are thus forced to become a part of this living-learning environment. If the university mandates that every freshman live on-campus, and these residences become part of a grander educational scheme, then freshmen have no escape from the ideologies put forth in the Residence Life programs. This approach is invasive and encroaches on the privacy of all residents.
The direction Residence Life has taken with its meetings and programs is also unsettling. In previous years, floor meetings and programs were focused on social icebreakers and interacting with new members of the residence hall community. Testimonials from both sides show that many of these meetings have been redirected to focus on tolerance and diversity issues.
According to some freshmen, including Arman Fardanesh, some RAs forced students to express personal opinions in front of their peers relating their thoughts on questions to do with race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, religion, ableism and socio-economic status. Residence Life's own materials promote the view that white citizens are inherently racist because of historical precedence and that RAs should conduct activities that express this idea.
The students who went to FIRE and stood up for their beliefs should be commended. Too often the students at this university are considered apathetic and incapable of real action. Here, we see students taking a stand and actively pursuing change for their own lives.
Students may feel uncomfortable answering these questions but may have a hard time saying no to RAs. In such an environment, providing a perceived intolerant answer or one that deviates from Residence Life's stance can lead to isolation from the floor community and tension with the RA.
RAs are intended to create floor harmony and offer a welcoming atmosphere to students; however, these kinds of activities often succeed in achieving the opposite effect by causing resentment and creating discord. These personally-intrusive meetings and programs have no place in public universities and need to be eliminated from Residence Life's curriculum.
With the recent backlash the university has faced in light of last semester's South of the Border party incident and a rash of other hate crimes and racially-insensitive events, Residence Life attempted to change outside perceptions of a racist stigma. Residence Life's ramped-up diversity and tolerance education programs served as a hopeful quick-fix solution for the university's public relations woes. In attempting to do so, it overcompensated and has now gone too far in the other direction.
The university did not make a mistake in its mission of providing positive developmental opportunities for its students. While it is appropriate to punish those who commit hate crimes, students who choose to be intolerant cannot be preemptively punished. The university needs to educate without forcing its views on anyone else. Residence Life should create opportunities for learning that refrain from making students uncomfortable. Moreover, the Office of Housing should promote the further integration of residence halls to create more opportunities for this exposure and interaction.
Follow us on Twitter
Subscribe to our feed
Contact us through email
Be the first to comment on this article!