Open letter to the Dean of Undergraduate Students

We know that you don’t normally handle housing matters, but we wanted to make you aware that the Housing office is currently threatening students with disciplinary action for possessing additional University furniture. Perhaps you know about the current controversy over the University furniture policy. Our concerns particularly refer to the use of an additional bed. The intent of this op-ed is to offer arguments for compromise that will grant a grace period for the newly enforced policy until the end of the 2011-12 school year.

For as along as we’ve been at this University, students have made arrangements with friends to receive their University-issued beds in order to make space for personal furniture. I would like to argue that the furniture policy posted on the Princeton University housing website is ambiguous and misleading. The policy states, “Furniture may not be removed from any buildings. You may request for a University mattress to be removed from your room by contacting Building Services at 8-3490, however the bed frame must remain in the room.”

The phrasing of the policy could be interpreted to mean that furniture cannot be removed from the dorm, but if a student wants the University to assist in furniture accommodations, the University will only assist in removing the mattress. In light of this coupled interpretation, with previous leniency regarding this matter, it is easy to see how many students were surprised when they were informed that they were in violation of the furniture policy by keeping extra furniture.

We suggest a compromise of a grace period until the end of the 2011-12 school year because this rule was not enforced until three months into the fall semester, once students had already purchased bedding and settled into their rooms. Had a practiced policy clearly indicated that students may not remove or, more specifically, receive additional University furniture at the beginning of the year, those of us now being affected by the policy could have made arrangements to avoid any consequences.

When we first inquired at the housing department about the enforcement of this policy we were informed that there were concerns about damage to furniture and dorm rooms due to the movement of additional furniture and the possibility of increased housing costs. We argue that since this policy was not enacted at the beginning of the year, there will be no difference in the alleged damage whether it happens now or at the end of the year.

Like with other housing or furniture damages, which are always charged at the end of the year, compliance to this policy should also be assessed at the end of spring semester. Those who leave extra furniture at the end of the year or do not have all of their furniture once they vacate campus should be subject to a fine. This course of action would ensure that individual students take on the responsibility of the cost of extra work and hassle for the housing department. The threat of a steep fine at the end of the year is enough to deter negligence.

Those who loaned us their beds have yet to be fined. Presumably, a fine will be levied at the end of the year if the furniture is not returned. Why should this fine be delayed, while a penalty is enforced mid-year for those who have received additional furniture intended to be returned by the end of the year? Through this reasoning, the policy seems, at best, arbitrary and, at worst, to privilege the students who can afford the high price of purchasing, moving and storing their own furniture. Measures such as the University’s extension of financial aid to cover eating club expenses is evidence of commitment to equality, but the way in which the furniture policy is being enforced is out of line with those steps toward a more egalitarian community. The current system in which students who want to bring their own furniture loan their University-issued furniture to others for the school year is both implicitly understood among the student body and has been improvised in the absence of clear-cut rules and consequences regarding the use of University furniture. Students have created a symbiotic relationship, which fosters cooperation and responsibility.

We would like to point out the precedent of the 2009-10 painting incident and the University’s subsequent compromise with students. Similar to the current circumstance, students were charged mid-year for painting their rooms. While the University had a policy that stated this was not allowed, the University never enforced the policy, which led to the assumption that it was allowed. We suggest that the same measures of compromise through delayed fines be taken in this situation as well.

While this matter might seem trivial in the grand scope of all that goes on at Princeton, it is for this reason that we ask for leniency. We understand it is the University’s prerogative to create and enforce rules for the protection and benefit of the entire Princeton community, but we accept these policies with the understanding that they be fair. Part of this fairness is understanding that rules concerning housing would be implemented at the beginning of the year in a clear way. Disciplinary action seems excessive in light of the benign nature of this infraction. Please consider taking our arguments into consideration, and we welcome an open discussion concerning this matter.

Simone Hill is an anthropology major from Atlanta, GA. She can be reached at simoneh@princeton.edu. Ayaan McKenzie is a sociology major from Weston, Fl. She can be reached at ammckenz@princeton.edu.