On Feb. 5, The Daily Princetonian reported a University decision to make Spelman 7 and 8 a part of Whitman college for next year. We are writing this editorial on behalf of over 50 independent and prospective independent students who believe that this decision is poorly thought out, unfair and illogical and needs to be reversed.
Though the past five years have seen an average decline of independent interest in Spelman, this trend is not necessarily going to continue. Additionally, the decline is not proportional to the amount of rooms being removed. The fact that there were a few rooms left over last year is no guarantee that interest will be low again this year, and with 25 percent of Spelman off-limits to full independents, it’s a good bet that those at the bottom of the Spelman draw will be forced to look elsewhere for housing. Administrators understand this; Undergraduate Housing Manager Angela Hodgeman repeatedly emphasized in a recent conversation with one of us that Housing was not confident that all interested independent students would get rooms in Spelman.
This is both irrational and unjust to independent students. The Spelman dormitories are the only ones on campus that contain private kitchens and independents should be given first priority in choosing these rooms. We understand that the administrators who made this decision are trying to broaden the options available for students by creating a combination of residential college and independent life. Given the size and convenience of the five-room quads in Spelman, however, the rooms will be in high demand for most juniors and seniors, and it is quite likely that those who draw in will have no intention of cooking for themselves. The students in Spelman 7 and 8 are going to be purchasing at least 95 meals a semester and won’t need a kitchen as much as independent students who have no meals. In fact, people with good draw times could conceivably have two places to get food with a shared dining hall/eating club plan in addition to a wholly unnecessary private kitchen.
Many students have already made their decisions to live in Spelman by choosing not to bicker or sign in to an eating club. The plan to annex Spelman 7 and 8 was not made public until after it was too late to bicker or sign in, and many students chose to go independent next year with the belief that there would again be plenty of Spelman rooms when room draw comes. A great deal of those students planning to go independent next year were planning to draw with members of eating clubs, since in last year’s draw, all “mixed” draw groups got rooms in Spelman. Now that they are committed to going independent, they find that they must make more sacrifices: To maximize their chances of getting the kitchens that they need, students may have to give up living with best friends who are in clubs for fear of getting a lower draw time. If the current plan remains in place, Whitman students who never made any of these sacrifices will be able to live in Spelman with a kitchen they may not need. This is extremely unfair, and for many of us, personal, since we are in “mixed” draw groups that are likely to be at the bottom of this year’s Spelman draw.
We hope that this situation can be resolved in a way that ensures that any independent group wishing to enter Spelman is given priority over students in a residential college. This could be accomplished by determining the number of Spelman buildings in the Whitman draw after draw lists are compiled and opening enough rooms to independents to ensure that every group on the Spelman draw list is guaranteed a room and giving the rest to Whitman.
Alternatively, Housing could move Spelman draw ahead of the Residential College draw, allowing independents first chance at rooms. Spelman 7 and 8 could stay reserved for Whitman unless all other Spelman units fill up with independents, at which point they would be opened one at a time. This way Housing won’t have to worry about students who sign up for Spelman draw and don’t end up wanting a room there. If extra space is needed for Whitman housing there are plenty of other dorms the University could choose from that aren’t tailored to the needs of independents.
This decision is not fully thought out and is an affront to independent students. Taking the only full private kitchens on campus away from independents students and giving them to students who already have a meal plan is unreasonable, and the decision should be reversed or at the very least seriously reexamined.
Sam Borchard and Margaret Byron are sophomores and can be reached at borchard@princeton.edu and mbyron@princeton.edu.
The following indepedent and prospective independent students have signed the above op-ed in support.
Sam Borchard ’10
Ryan Irwin ’10
Margaret Byron ’10
Hannah Grimm ’09
Megan Schoendorf ’10
Jon Bradshaw ’10
Marc Osherson ’10
Maya Srinivasan ’10
Samantha L Jaeger ’10
Josephine Walker ’10
Andrew Davis ’10
Oliver Conway ’10
Lucas Giron ’09
Jonathan Giuffrida ’10
Doug Sprankling ’10
Rahul Krishna ’10
Sam Leachman ’09
Geoffrey Lou Guray ’10
Stephanie Ivins ’10
Dan Jaffe ’10
Alex Barnard ’09
Raj Rana ’10
Sarah Chambliss ’10
Anna Moccia-Field ’10
Becca Levin ’10
William Buchanan ’10
John Torrey ’10
Brad Kern ’10
Ben Oliver ’10
Julia Neufeld ’10
Katherine Zaeh ’10
Katy Barnhart ’08
Paul Nehring ’09
Lindsey Hornbuckle ’09
Tess Cecil-Cockwell ’08
Nico Macfarlane ’08
Vera Kiss ’08
Diana C. Vall-llobera’10
Mike Vincent ’09
David Leyva ’10
Zaafir Kherani ’08
Yufei Liu ’08
Zhen Xia ’08
Gary Li ’08
Ian Flaniken ’10
Raleigh Martin ’08
Zachary Marr ’09
Robert Krause ’09
Fatu Conteh ’10
Alejandro Perez ’10
Gustavo Silva ’10
Alberto Jurado Varela ’10
Read More
Keep academic authority in human hands
Lily Halbert-AlexanderThe Trump administration’s attacks on research and higher education as well as a blind reliance on AI chatbots are reflective of a societal backslide: a commodification of knowledge that prioritizes “efficiency” over the messy process of getting to an answer, where nuances are flattened and the truth is fungible.
The Trump administration’s attacks on research and higher education as well as a blind reliance on AI chatbots are reflective of a societal backslide: a commodification of knowledge that prioritizes “efficiency” over the messy process of getting to an answer, where nuances are flattened and the truth is fungible.
What do we owe society for a Princeton education?
Jia Cheng ShenThe social and moral responsibility that comes with receiving a degree subsidized by both private generosity and public trust is significant.
The social and moral responsibility that comes with receiving a degree subsidized by both private generosity and public trust is significant.
Notes from a so-called enemy’s classroom
Jennifer JenningsIt wasn’t revolutionary. It was homework. But it was homework that asked: how do we build schools that work for all kids? Inclusion, after all, is the “I” in DEI. That’s what we’re thinking about together. And caring about each other’s experiences and opportunities, it turns out, isn’t something you can outlaw.
It wasn’t revolutionary. It was homework. But it was homework that asked: how do we build schools that work for all kids? Inclusion, after all, is the “I” in DEI. That’s what we’re thinking about together. And caring about each other’s experiences and opportunities, it turns out, isn’t something you can outlaw.