- Subscribe to the Daily Gazette »
The Daily Gazette on:
Housing Co-op Will Not Be On Campus in 2011
By Monika ZaleskaFebruary 1, 2011
The administration is not moving forward with the proposal for a campus-owned residential co-op in the upcoming academic year. Assistant Dean for Residential Life Rachel Head cited mixed student support, the current housing assignment process and Dining Services as areas of concern.
Head, who consulted with the Housing Committee and a number of students, said in an interview that she received “mixed feedback.” The concerns, she said, were logistical rather than philosophical.
Concerns arose around “what residential life will look like in the future,” something currently being discussed in the Strategic Planning process.
“There’s no denying that I’m frustrated about the Dean’s Office’s decision, but we do have options, and something will happen next year even if it’s nowhere close to the ideal,” said group member Ben Wolcott ‘14, who lived in a co-op during his gap year after high school.
The student group, who received StuCo’s unanimous support to bring a resolution to the Dean’s Office last semester, says their aim is to “create their own communal culture and identity within the school community.” This would include cooking and cleaning together, meeting regularly and taking on communal activist projects.
Woolman House, where the group proposed that the co-op would be housed. Photo by Mark Kharas.The group proposed using Woolman House and offering places to students based on a separate housing lottery. This would potentially create 24 places in the co-op.
However, this raised the issue of equity in the current housing assignment process. Removing Woolman House from the lottery might push some underclassmen into less desirable housing.
The co-op model differs from dorm living in that the students who live there will actively choose to “invest significant amounts of time […] creating a culture,” according to the resolution. The proposal stressed that this is an alternative, not an option the members view as superior, to dorm life.
Dining in the co-op is both philosophically and technically problematic, according to the administration. While the group cites cooking and eating their meals together as a very important aspect of their idea of the co-op, Head called Sharples Dining Hall Swarthmore College’s “safety net,” one of the only places where the school gathers together communally.
Additionally, the option of being on-campus and yet off the meal plan presents concerns.
“We don’t want people to make the decision whether or not to eat because of the cost of the meal plan,” Head said.
This co-op would not be the first at Swarthmore College. From 1978-1982 the Ashton House served as the home to the Community Housing Project. The co-op ended as enthusiasm for the project dwindled after a couple of years.
“The Ashtonites cooked meals for each other, organized political action groups, held several all-campus parties, built a sauna in the basement, and started a small library,” according to a 1996 Phoenix article.
Abigail Henderson ’14, a member of the current co-op group, is helping organize alumni support by contacting former members of the Ashton house group. Her father, an alum, lived in the Community Housing Project.
“The idea is that we could use it as a model by looking at what worked and what didn’t and then fixing what didn’t,” said Henderson.
Head said that in the past other groups have sought specialized housing, including substance-free, foreign language and multicultural housing. The concern, she said, is the “sustainability of the program.” Problems arise when students who do not subscribe to the ideology of the particular type of housing are placed in it out of the necessity to fill spots.
The group is currently exploring off-campus options for the upcoming 2011-2012 school year. However, the current borough restriction on over three unrelated people living together is presenting difficulties.
“I can sense support building on campus, so I like to think that it’s only a matter of time until Swarthmore has a co-op,” said Wolcott.
Head said the administration would help and support the students as they continue to explore their options.
Peter '11
February 1, 2011 at 4:49 am
The school has continually increased enrollment and plans to increase more, but there's been little investment in expanding dining options accordingly, hence ridiculously long pasta bar lines. Seems to me that administrators should be looking toward providing alternatives to Sharples, instead of forcing people onto the meal plan against their will. Co-op seems like a good place to start.
off-campus
February 1, 2011 at 7:22 am
I'd like to hear a more spirited defense of how Sharples is the school's safety net, and if so, how it could possibly be more community-forming than the creation of an intentional cooperative student space. Surely the administration can see that a co-op would work to engage the Swarthmore community at large. At the very least, it seems unreasonable to assume that a co-op is somehow a threat to strong bonds between students; quite the opposite. Besides, couldn't they make the same claim ML breakfast?
what century do we live in?
February 1, 2011 at 7:33 am
"However, the current borough restriction on over three unrelated people living together is presenting difficulties."
whatt?!
go co-ops!
February 1, 2011 at 8:40 am
I went to the University of Michigan for two years, where the co-op system is historic and thriving. Several of my friends lived in some of almost twenty (!) co-ops around campus, and they developed into compassionate, active citizens and makers of strong, intentional community (at Michigan, and more importantly, elsewhere in the world). Co-ops are incredible spaces for translating the sort of paper-and-pen (and in-the-world!) values of social justice and democracy to the oft-neglected sphere of home: how many of us know folks who spend hours a week campaigning for the greater good, but leave the dishes behind in a nasty pile in the dorm sink?
Co-ops, I've found, are especially fertile training grounds for activism and awareness in labor, diversity, tolerance, communication, and food sustainability. Most of us, outside of specially concerned groups, are not exposed to the labor that goes into cooking, cleaning, and tending to a large group of people; nor are we granted the opportunity to benefit from the incredible sense of "full-circle" community created when the loops of those system are closed, and a community does it for themselves.
I think a co-op — many co-ops, as a matter of fact! — are a vital and critically missing part of Swarthmore's culture. Quaker heritage or no, we can't always all "commune" in the group of 1,200. I agree with what an alum once said: why not bring back a meaningful, topical Friday collection, in which we all address issues of concern on campus (and wade through the tribulation of reaching concensus with however many hundred people attend!) instead of continuing to claim that "Sharples" is (one of our sole?) hold-overs of Quaker spirit?
There are few enough places in the ville (!) for groups of students to live together intentionally, or to reduce their alienation from the processes of food production or clean-up. I'd argue that the introduction of a co-op system would actually *increase*, rather than diminish, student solidarity & compassion for EVS staff & Sharples workers. It's a critical step in Swarthmore's being a training ground for smart, involved students to "walk the talk," in small groups — since that's what it's going to take for us to better the various communities we head to in the "real" (or: rest of the) world.
(Those skeptical about the functioning of a co-op system at a liberal art school similar to Swarthmore should investigate the student owned co-ops system at Oberlin — what an opportunity to learn, grow, and take responsibility! And it's been around FOREVER, so I don't think interest in those lessons has waned any … : http://new.oberlin.edu/student-life/housing/housing-options/co-ops.dot
Check out that statistic: one in every *five* Oberlin students is a member of a dining or residential co-op!)
hotpotato
February 2, 2011 at 1:27 am
The thing about more than three unrelated people being prohibited from living together is a ridiculous rule that college towns often enact. Sometimes they're called "brothel laws"–one was just passed in the town where Northwestern University is located. The two main reasons cited by people who speak frankly about the laws are 1) it protects real estate values and neighborhoods by prohibiting weird situations with young people, often with unsteady unemployment (i.e., potential inability to make rent) moving constantly in and out of apartments and homes; and 2) it prevents students from congregating in a residence and making in the de facto "party house" (there goes the neighborhood!). It's really dumb and alarmist, and I didn't actually realize that Swarthmore had this sort of law until I read so in this article. It seems so unnecessary given the size of the student body and the sort of students that Swatties usually are.
I will say that moving off campus was the best decision I made while at Swat. The meal plan is far too expensive, the food choices far too limited and often unhealthy, and Sharples is overcrowded and a headache to navigate.
hotpotato
February 2, 2011 at 1:31 am
…the point of my last paragraph being, Sharples isn't the happy communal space administration seems to think it is, or at least wants it to be, and it would need an overhaul of infrastructure and policy for that to ACTUALLY happen. If you want people to feel no need for co-ops because, hey, they've got Sharples!, then start making dramatic changes to the woefully inefficient cafeteria and maybe then they'll talk. But I still don't know if making enormous, positive changes to Sharples would entirely change people's sentiments about co-ops at Swarthmore, because they have a lot of value and are very successful at tons of liberal arts colleges across the country.
skeptical
February 6, 2011 at 9:51 am
how would a co-op help but a handful of students experience a different sort of culture?
frustrated senior
February 7, 2011 at 5:11 pm
Instead of BS-ing over a) how Sharples isn't all that bad and b) how it is an integral community-fostering place on campus, the administration should be forced to purchase an incredibly overpriced meal plan and be required to eat at least two meals a day, five days a week there.
On one hand, THAT would foster a sense of community. On the other, it wouldn't take long for the food to be less crappy.
:(
February 8, 2011 at 9:41 am
As someone who was definitely interested in being involved in the co-op, I am extremely upset by the apparent disregard the administration has shown toward the student body in this decision. I am also amazed by the incompetence of an administration that cannot handle what so many other schools with worse budgetary concerns seem to handle pretty well.
done my dishes
February 8, 2011 at 3:45 pm
What about an off-campus subsidy for those that cannot afford to go off the housing plan? It seems to me that if you're living off-campus you can create your own co-op living.
I think it is important to note that this proposal received "mixed feedback" from students. It might be a great concept, but it doesn't have widespread support of the student body.
"Mixed feedback"?
February 8, 2011 at 7:35 pm
What is this "mixed feedback"? How many students did she interview? Why are they considered an adequate sample to represent the opinions of the student body?
Outraged
February 8, 2011 at 7:49 pm
“We don’t want people to make the decision whether or not to eat because of the cost of the meal plan,” Head said.
Head called Sharples Dining Hall Swarthmore College’s “safety net,” one of the only places where the school gathers together communally.
–What? Do they not know that the meal plan is actually more expensive than paying for EVERY meal at Sharples outside of the meal plan? It would be cheaper /not/ to be on the meal plan.
Sigh. Clearly, the college is profiting off of students overpaying for a meal plan and doesn't want to lose revenue by giving any alternative options to the students, and covering it all up by using weak "reasons" that have no foundation in reality and, when that fails, citing "Quaker values."
I wish Swarthmore's administration would stop using Quaker values to cover up for their obvious incompetence.
I don't hate sharples
February 9, 2011 at 9:14 am
Sharples isn't restaurant-class dining, but it really isn't that bad compared to a lot of other colleges. There's always a vegetarian choice, and a three-S meal (soup,salad,and a sandwich) is always a viable back-up option.
Personally, I have absolutely no interest in living in a co-op. More power to the people who are into that sort of thing, but (shockingly) there are a people on campus who don't consider this a high priority and have "mixed opinions" on this issue.
just some thoughts
February 9, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Even if it is cheaper to eat off the meal plan than on, it would be cheaper still to skip meals/not eat. Rachel Head has a point. This doesn't, of course, justify exorbinant meal costs but people being off the meal plan on campus would be more likely not to eat for cost reasons than those on the meal plan (sunk cost, might as well eat). That said, people with eating disorders won't eat even with the meal plan so I hope that's not what she meant.
not everyone's you
February 10, 2011 at 10:54 am
some people are here on financial aid and the school covers their meal plan
so for some students it isn't cheaper to be off the meal plan…
something to consider when looking at school sponsored off campus housing…
hotpotato
February 11, 2011 at 1:51 am
The amount of financial aid the school offers you does not change whether you live on or off campus. If the school said it's going to give you $40,000 towards your tuition and living costs while at Swarthmore, you get that even if you elect to live off campus.
So the meals plan is just always really expensive. I ate for half its cost this past semester living off campus, and ate quite well (I really do consider myself a food snob and ate lots of organic stuff and stocked lots of hard-to-find spices and blah blah blah), and I didn't have to suffer through the rotation of the same handful of sub-par options. And my financial aid amount actually increased slightly from the previous year. The financial aid office calculates your cost to attend Swarthmore based on their own default costs, not on how much you personally actually end up spending.
Will Hopkins
February 11, 2011 at 3:58 pm
Personally, I have no interest in co-op living and find Sharples to be a perfectly adequate (if repetitive) place to eat. In fact, I do feel like it is a communal space and it is one of the few places where my friends and I come together every day. Yes, it could (and should) be bigger, but it works.
I'm sure co-ops work other places and there's no reason they wouldn't work here. Maybe, though, it's not the right time for it. I think it's perfectly valid for the administration to decide not to change housing options significantly (and adding a co-op and removing a dorm would be significant) in the middle of strategic planning.
So: Encourage them to take up the idea in the strategic planning conversations. Use the resources we students have to weigh in on the process and make your voice heard that way. Make co-ops a part of the overall vision for the College going forward. It seems like that's the goal, but I specifically recommend using the strategic planning web site and talking to members of the committee.
Ben Wolcott
February 12, 2011 at 9:33 pm
Hey everyone,
I want to apologize for the written diarrhea that I’m about to expel. I’m warning you now that the transitions will be ugly, and what I write is going to be over-simplified given the nature of the Daily Gazette. Please feel free to ask anyone you know in the group any questions. We’ve been working really hard to make this work one way or another, and my post is in no way conclusive or representative. I can actually talk for more than an hour at a pretty decent clip about this, so this post is not trying to cover every issue
For a little background, there are currently 37 students on a co-op list serve, which means that they are considering the idea of living in a housing co-op.
The most important thing that has been left out of this entire conversation is the fact that Student Council unanimously passed a resolution supporting our group. It’s important to note that Student Council resolutions need more than a majority to be passed because they carry the weight of the student body. The Dean’s office didn’t mention Student Council’s decision in their written response to our proposal. Instead, they mentioned mixed support among the student body. This is a bit unfair because no one would expect every student to be extremely excited about the co-op. Only 15 or 20 students would have lived in Woolman, and communal living is not for everyone. Therefore, it is more important to gauge student excitement. My impression, which is probably a biased one, is that most students fall into one of four categories. Either they are really excited about living communally, interested in learning more about what communal living would be like, supportive of the group even though they don’t want to live in a co-op, or they are pretty neutral. I have not yet met anyone who is strongly opposed to the idea. Furthermore, it is likely that the co-op would actually create better housing for sophomores! A lot of sophomores currently live in Woolman, so past a certain point, each junior and senior that lives in the co-op opens up a "better" room that they are giving up to live in the co-op.
I’ve read a lot of posts that talk about Sharples, and I don’t think that some of these comments are particularly relevant to the co-op (although plenty relevant to the student body). Many of the people who are excited about living communally don’t have issues with Sharples. The distribution of opinions about Sharples in the group is probably representative of the student body. I, for one, really enjoy eating in Sharples, but I want something more intimate.
Also, our resolution is currently posted on the strategic planning website, and it’s a process that the co-op group is going through.
Something else that has been lost in this conversation is how the co-op would help more than a “ handful of students experience a different sort of culture.” @ skeptical, we think that it’s vital that we are part of the larger campus community. Hopefully, we will host open dinners and events for the entire school. Also, the fact that some students are living in a different and more intentional way than your average dorm might spark some people living in dorms to think more about and invest more time into their hall life.
I’d like to end by saying that I really don’t see myself as spokesperson for this group. I’m just a member saying what he’s noticed. The co-op is a communal endeavor. Please give us tough questions. We want to answer them.
With warmth,
ben
Will Lawrence
February 13, 2011 at 4:27 pm
Hear hear, Ben.
@Will Hopkins regarding strategic planning: Your post echoes what the administration tells every student group currently working for positive social change on this campus. While I agree that the co-op and other groups should be voicing their concerns through strategic planning, we should not limit ourselves to this very narrow, indirect method of facilitating improvements in our community. In addition to "using the resources we students have," as you recommend, we should also be questioning the limits of the resources given to us, and asking why the administration has a pattern of dismissal, diversion and obstruction of completely reasonable student demands.
Our means of realizing our desires are not limited to the (largely symbolic) strategic planning process.
bored
February 14, 2011 at 4:15 pm
Okay, I'm bored and there is a serious lack of interesting discussion on the DG this year, so I'm going to entertain myself by complaining about Swatties. This is a privilege I've earned by virtue of putting up with them for four years.
@ Ben: Actually, your comment was fairly reasonable, although I totally had to laugh at the "dorm on the hill" mentality whereby the co-op will inspire other Swatties to "liv[e] in a different and more intentional way." I will note that I do not live intentionally (I consider it pure accident), but I was under the impression that others generally do. Anyway, just because you have "not yet met anyone who is strongly opposed to the idea" doesn't mean they don't exist; it just means that people are usually either too tactful to tell you that they think you're stupid to your face, or that they are jerks and gossip behind your back. I don't know if I'm strongly opposed to the idea, but I am definitely skeptical. Sure, cooking and hanging out with your friends all the time sounds great now, but wait until finals week. I imagine that no one's going to be fighting over who gets to cook dinner then. Also, it's scientifically proven that the more time you spend with a group of people, the more likely you are to hate them. That's why teenagers and their parents fight constantly. On a separate note, as a senior I am savoring my last few months of having people cook and clean for me, so maybe that's why I can't understand the co-op mentality.
Anyway, possibly the most annoying thing about Swatties (I welcome other nominations) is that their devotion to social justice often manifests in completely useless and generally stupid ways. Generally, this is the assumption that the "administration" is trying to screw us all over. It is unclear why the administration does this – they are greedy but couldn't get a job on Wall Street? they hate college students so they came to Swat just to ruin our lives? they want to sully the good name of Quakers? – but this mysterious bureaucracy always seems to be scheming somehow. 'Outraged' demonstrates this weird paranoia quite well: "Clearly, the college is profiting off of students overpaying for a meal plan and doesn't want to lose revenue by giving any alternative options to the students, and covering it all up by using weak 'reasons' that have no foundation in reality and, when that fails, citing 'Quaker values.' I wish Swarthmore's administration would stop using Quaker values to cover up for their obvious incompetence." Yeah, that's totally the ONLY reason Rachel Head would say, "not next year, guys."
But Will Lawrence's response to Will Hopkins is even more unfounded in reality: "Your post echoes what the administration tells every student group currently working for positive social change on this campus … In addition to 'using the resources we students have,' as you recommend, we should also be questioning the limits of the resources given to us, and asking why the administration has a pattern of dismissal, diversion and obstruction of completely reasonable student demands. Our means of realizing our desires are not limited to the (largely symbolic) strategic planning process."
I wonder if we go to the same school. As far as I can tell, Swat does a pretty good job of helping student groups accomplish positive social change, both on campus and off. Sometimes the administration might disagree with students, but that's a far cry from being dismissive. The administration generally gets concerned whenever lots of students are upset about something and holds about a million fireside chats that no one attends. So… yeah, I have to disagree with you there. I have no idea what you're talking about with the "pattern of dismissal, diversion, and obstruction of completely reasonable student demands." Perhaps you could give some examples? The strategic planning process is definitely NOT symbolic; otherwise, why would so many administrators, faculty, and students waste their time on it? And besides administrative avenues, what other ways do you suggest we "realiz[e] our desires?" Marxist revolution? Over a housing co-op?
To all the super-paranoid Swatties, I suggest you become involved on a campus committee instead of bitching about the administration. You will actually meet the administrators, realize they are not evil robots intent on frustrating all your utopian desires, and possibly make a change on campus. You think Sharples is overpriced, unhealthy, boring, a conspiracy? Join the Dining Committee or, at the very least, write on the napkin board – it takes about ten seconds. You want a co-op? Join the Housing Committee. Because, contrary to popular belief, students (as well as administrators) on that committee made an informed decision that the co-op isn't feasible for next year. Note that Rachel Head said that the concerns are logistical rather than philosophical. It's way too late in the year to realistically expect that a big change like that could be implemented for this fall, even with a Marxist Revolution. Or maybe you could just volunteer off-campus and realize that the world basically sucks and Swat is way better than 90% of the places you could end up. Sure, we should try to improve it, but… a little perspective.
Will Hopkins
February 14, 2011 at 5:27 pm
Ben: Great response to the article and comments. Keep it up, and good luck.
Will Lawrence: I disagree with your characterization of the administration's approach. I think using the term "demands" is indicative of the combative relationship (which cuts both ways) between the students and administration at this time. Yes, the administration's process is sometimes opaque. On the other hand, they necessarily must take into account different perspectives than we students do, and so it is natural to have some conflict.
I don't disagree that the co-op group's proposal is reasonable. That doesn't mean that it's feasible at this time, though. I'll leave it there. I hope you succeed, and that Swarthmore develops a strong co-op culture. Good luck.