Editorial: Room for cautious optimism in new RCA policy

A primary concern about the new policy lies in the two walk-throughs that RCAs will perform each night they are on call. Because the change is so new, it is not yet entirely clear what the function of these walk-throughs will be. It would be detrimental to residential college life if RCAs were to serve essentially as proxies for Public Safety: breaking up parties, confiscating alcohol and creating an adversarial relationship between themselves and their advisees. To that end, it is heartening that the residential college directors of student life have affirmed in e-mails to students that RCAs will not adopt the responsibilities of Public Safety on their walk-throughs. Rather, the board hopes that RCAs will serve as a buffer between students and Public Safety. RCAs who discover loud parties during their walk-throughs could work informally with room residents to defuse the situation while still having the option of contacting Public Safety in the event of a serious safety concern. Such a system would allow campus police to reduce their presence in hallways and dorms without increasing the risk of extremely unsafe drinking on campus. Importantly, it would grant RCAs discretion to discriminate between situations that are a legitimate safety concern and those that are not.

Though there are legitimate concerns about walk-throughs, having RCAs on-call during party nights will provide underclassmen with a valuable resource when faced with personal problems such as a difficult roommate or relationship troubles. While all students living in a residential college do have their own RCA to turn to if they require help, the new policy will ensure that there is at least one RCA sober and easily available throughout the night. Many peer schools have a similar system, and the board is glad that Princeton has decided to institute its own.

Finally, though, the fashion in which Princeton’s administration chose to change this policy continues a pattern of implementing substantial changes to campus life without meaningful student input. RCAs have indicated that they were neither consulted nor informed in advance about the shift, which was announced only after RCAs had signed contracts for the current school year. Furthermore, the change was not discussed in any detail with the student body as a whole during the administration’s deliberations. While there is reason to be cautiously optimistic about the result of the process in this case, greater consultation with students will in general both improve the policies adopted by the school and demonstrate that the administration is committed to collaborating with students in designing the rules that will govern our lives on campus.

Oliver Palmer ’11 recused himself from voting on this editorial.

Apply to be a member of the Editorial Board. We are accepting applications through October 1.