There is a meeting tonight on physical spaces. More on this tommorrow but, in the meantime, if you are a student or student leader you should go to this meeting and lobby for more co-op spaces, at least for keeping Goodrich, Parsons and Sewall as co-ops. In a four cluster model, there is no particular reason why the clusters need to be the same size, so there is no reason why these co-ops need to be converted. Below is my email to the CUL on the topic.


1) Kudos to all of you for spending so much time and energy to make Williams a better place.

2) For those who don’t know me, I am a participant at EphBlog and have written an absurd amount on the topic of anchor housing. If you are curious, see here:

3) Although I am not a fan of anchor housing — or, rather, I am a huge fan of free agency — I think that the 4 cluster proposal with First Years in Mission is not a bad option. Indeed, it helps to alleviate many of the concerns that I and others have with anchor housing. I realize that this is more Dean Roseman’s call than yours, but I hope that you will lend your voice in its favor.

4) I don’t have great insights into why the 4 cluster is a better plan. I agree with most of the points made by the Record.

5) If the 4 cluster plan is approved, I hope that you will use this occasion to significantly increase the number of co-ops spaces. One aspect of the original plan that made me (and many others) quite upset was the loss of co-ops spots in Goodrich, Parsons and Sewall. I realize that the mathematics of house location and the need for 5 clusters forced a lot of this but it was still aggravating to see, even with the proposed co-op additions of Chadbourne and Woodridge. I do not need to tell the CUL how wildly popular co-ops are with students. I think that new plan might meet with much larger student support if if featured a significant co-op increase. Moreover, with only 4 clusters, the loss of senior leadership in the clusters will be proportionately less.

6) On a personal note, allow me to say Hello to Will, Dave and Tom, all of my era at Williams. It seems like only yesterday . . .

7) On a historical note, allow me to remind the students on the committee that *generations* of Ephs before you have fought for co-ops. It is never that the CUL or the Administration is against them. It has just been, historically, that non-students have never realized how much students want co-ops and how much they benefit from them, from the chance to spend senior year living with a small set of close friends in an intimate setting. In my day, there were only 50 (?) spots.

Now is one of the rare occasions when the number of co-ops might be increased. I urge you to fight for the addition of more co-ops and the retention of those already present. You, the students of CUL, have a non-trivial amount of leverage at this point since the Administration’s highest priority is starting anchor housing with as much student support and enthusiasm as possible. I, and future Ephs, hope that you use this leverage to increase the number of co-ops.

Again, thanks to all of you for the time and effort you have put into this process over the last few years. I haven’t always agreed with your conclusions and I have, more than once, complained about the process, but I will never doubt your good intentions.


Dave Kane ’88

Print  •  Email