- EphBlog - http://ephblog.com -

On Neighborhood Housing

Doug writes:

Can you explain why the neighborhood system is the “single biggest failure” at Williams in recent memory? I’m a student here now and the neighborhood system is totally fine with everyone — I’ve never actually heard anyone bash it before. People generally seem to like neighborhood events and not having RAs But there’s also no institutional memory at this point about what it replaced. Curious if you could point me in the right direction to learn about this.

Start with a definition.

Neighborhood Housing: students are randomly assigned to one neighborhood and can’t transfer.

The central aspect of Neighborhood Housing — what made it different than the system today or the system pre-2005 — was that students were assigned to one of four “Neighborhoods” and were not allowed to change. This was similar, indeed it was explicitly designed to be similar, to housing systems at places like Yale and Harvard.

It is true that lots of other things were also changing around this time. Some changes — gender caps — pre-dated the implementation of Neighborhoods and are still with us. Some changes, like moving First Years to Mission, actually had nothing to do with Neighborhood Housing per se. Some of these changes were good. Some bad. But, in this post, I am just discussing Neighborhood Housing at its core: the random assignment of students to housing groups.

Consider some background reading from 2005. Summary:

1) From 1995 to 2006, the Williams housing system was “free agency.” There was a campus wide lottery more-or-less identical to the one in use today. The system was popular and worked well.

2) “Neighborhood Housing” — also known as “Anchor Housing” — was the replacement. It was 100% driven by the Williams administration, mainly then-President Morty Schapiro, but with significant help from faculty on the Committee on Undergraduate Life, folks like Charles Drew ’58 and Will Dudley ’89.

3) The fundamental goal was to prevent student self-segregation in housing selection, especially racial segregation (all the black students in Weston) and athlete segregation (all the male helmet-sport athletes in Tyler/Tyler Annex). At that time, the Berkshire Quad was universally known as the “Odd Quad” and served as central location for those students outside the Williams party/alcohol/athletics “mainstream.” My sense is that administrators were not anti-Odd Quad, but they were certainly more than willing to sacrifice the special character of the Odd Quad for their larger goals.

4) Neighborhood Housing worked, at least according to Morty’s goals. Student self-segregation decreased. It was tough for the whole football team to live together if 1/4 of the team was assigned to each Neighborhood.

5) Neighborhood Housing was certainly the biggest non-academic change at Williams in the last 20 years, and perhaps back to co-education. (Does anyone disagree?) And, given how constant academic life has been at Williams (and/or how gradual any changes have been), Neighborhood Housing may have been the biggest change at Williams in a generation. Other candidates?

6) Neighborhood Housing failed, which is why students are no longer randomly (and permanently) assigned to a neighborhood. It failed for all the reasons we predicted and just as we documented for a decade. It is to Williams (and Adam Falk’s? And Steve Klass’s) credit that we ended Neighborhood Housing a few years ago and went back to the traditional campus wide lottery.

7) There are residues of neighborhoods that are still with us, like the word “neighborhood” itself and some of the changes that went along with their creation and then destruction. By far the most important of these is the move of First Years to Mission Park.

8) One occasionally reads strange revanchist views like this from abl. I have trouble understanding them. If words have meaning then “Neighborhood Housing” means “students are randomly assigned to one neighborhood at random and can’t transfer.” Both opponents and supporters agreed that this was the heart of the debate. No one cared about “campus social life/planning.” The Administration could have changed any aspect of that and no student would have complained.

abl claims:

Moreover, the neighborhood system in its conception and its execution represents the sort of Democratic social engineering that DDF and his libertarian/conservative leanings detests.

Untrue! I am in favor of competent social engineering, as here. The CUL was incompetent, as we documented/predicted at the time. Neighborhood Housing was doomed from the start, mainly because certain Williams traditions (JAs and entries, and co-ops) and the reality of our diverse housing stock.

Facebooktwitter
Comments Disabled (Open | Close)

Comments Disabled To "On Neighborhood Housing"

#1 Comment By frank uible On January 12, 2018 @ 8:05 am

Fraternities did housing better.

#2 Comment By Dick Swart On January 12, 2018 @ 11:22 am

#3 Comment By abl On January 12, 2018 @ 1:10 pm

One occasionally reads strange revanchist views like this from abl. I have trouble understanding them. If words have meaning then “Neighborhood Housing” means “students are randomly assigned to one neighborhood at random and can’t transfer.” Both opponents and supporters agreed that this was the heart of the debate. No one cared about “campus social life/planning.” The Administration could have changed any aspect of that and no student would have complained.

This, like most of your above post, is a mix of blatantly untrue and highly misleading claims. My view isn’t revisionist — it’s an accurate reflection of the discussion of these issues on-campus at the time (and, probably more importantly, an accurate reflection of the actual purposes behind the proposal). You have always been fixated on the “freedom of housing” side of this issue — which has always been only one part of the system’s design. I can recall discussions that you were a part of at the time where you insisted, over objections of actual members of the CUL that this was the only relevant part of the change.

We can certainly agree that the primary sticking point of the CUL’s proposal was the limitations it put on the housing draw (although this was one of the proposal’s changes that, in my experience, had a fairly limited impact — both positive and negative). That this was the primary sticking point of the proposal and the primary source of controversy, however, doesn’t actually indicate that it was the only part of the proposal that mattered in either purpose or effect.

There were a number of different decisionmakers involved in the neighborhood housing change and a number of different motivations that went into the switch. For some, facilitating cross-group mixing was the primary goal. For others, facilitating “house” loyalty, like you see at Yale, was the primary goal. And for others, diversifying campus social life was the primary goal. I would be hesitant, knowing many of the key players in this, to say that one of these three goals (and there were others as well) took precedence over the others in the committee.

I think everyone would agree that the housing draw component of the neighborhood system was ultimately unsuccessful (although I think most would also agree that it was far from the disaster that its fiercest opponents–including you–claimed it would be). But the fact that one component from the neighborhood system did not live up to its lofty ideals — which is probably the best way to describe its effects — isn’t actually an indication that the proposal as a whole failed. Your argument to the contrary relies on your revisionism, in which you claim that a system that was by its own terms a collection of changes was “really” only about one change. I suppose you deserve points for consistency, insofar as your revisionism began ~10 years ago when you first started insisting that your own narrow conception of the proposed system was, conclusively, the only correct way to view the system.

#4 Comment By David Dudley Field ’25 On January 12, 2018 @ 2:57 pm

I can recall discussions that you were a part of at the time where you insisted, over objections of actual members of the CUL that this was the only relevant part of the change.

True! And I was right. This was the only reason that there was a big fight over the issue. This was the central fact which made free agency popular. This was the central complaint of students, especially students at Anchors Away, about the change. No one (meaningfully) cared about other aspects of Neighborhood Housing because they were stupid/useless/unimportant.

Now, it is true, that some members of CUL were enamored/confused/delusional about other aspects of Neighborhood Housing. They (honestly!) thought that they were “facilitating “house” loyalty, like you see at Yale” as “the primary goal.” These people were useful idiots, from the point of view of Morty/Roseman/Dudley.

There was never, ever, ever any chance that Williams would develop house loyalty (like at Yale) under Neighborhood Housing, not least because the plan did not involve forcing people to live in the same house for three years (like at Yale) much less forcing all first years from, say, Williams C to live in Carter (like at Yale). We predicted this outcome again and again, we mocked CUL mercilessly and accurately.

But the fact that one component from the neighborhood system did not live up to its lofty ideals — which is probably the best way to describe its effects — isn’t actually an indication that the proposal as a whole failed.

abl: What specific “component[s]” associated with Neighborhood Housing do you think succeeded? Honestly curious!

#5 Comment By Dick Swart On January 12, 2018 @ 3:06 pm

Just by observation, H and Y grandsons have strong house attachments.

#6 Comment By abl On January 12, 2018 @ 4:44 pm

DDF,

My original point is that if you view the neighborhood system as a complex multi-part system designed to simultaneously address several issues and to fulfill multiple purposes, it was partly successful. If you view the neighborhood system as being only about creating a Yale-like house system through the device of limiting housing choices, then no, it was not successful.

The question is, which version of neighborhood housing is the correct version? On the one hand, the CUL’s report makes it clear that this was a complex multi-part system designed to simultaneously address several issues and fulfill multiple purposes. On that same hand, multiple CUL members have gone on the record saying as much (and knowing several CUL members personally, I feel confident in saying that this accurately reflects the CUL’s intentions in the matter). And, on that same hand, the actual system implemented goes far beyond simply limiting students’ ability to self-select into any housing, including numerous design elements aimed primarily at promoting other express goals of the system — e.g., the actual system implemented was a complex multi-part system designed to simultaneously address several issues and to fulfill multiple purposes.

On the other hand, you vaguely cite, with no evidence (and no insider knowledge), some possible conspiracy on the part of Morty/Roseman/Dudley. And you dismiss everything–from the CUL’s actual report, to CUL member’s statements and intentions, to the actual system implemented–inconsistent with this view. Besides the fact that this is obviously conspiracy-mongering at its worst (albeit in a relatively harmless context), I actually knew Morty/Roseman/Dudley at that time–far better than you did–and I am confident that you’re wrong in this.

For an example of one of the system’s purposes that has been successful (because you asked), you only need to look as far as my previous comment, from which you quoted. One of the key explicit purposes of the neighborhood system — and the primary purpose, according to one or more members of the CUL — was to decentralize campus social planning and to diversify campus social events. This change, which was an integral part of the proposal, was, in my experience, an immediate success. And, from what I’ve heard, this is a change that has continued to largely persist with some degree of success.

On the other hand, the change of the system that was its biggest failure — requiring students to draw into just rooms in their neighborhood — ended up not being much of a deal at all. For better, this meant that the worst predictions of many, including you, did not come to pass: at most, this was an exceedingly minor annoyance for all but a few students. For worse, this meant that Yale-like house spirit didn’t immediately erupt. The change, although more neutral than anything, was a net negative and Williams backtracked on this within a couple of years.

An intellectually honest critique of the neighborhood system would point out that it had several big goals, one of which was to create Yale-like house comradery; and that one of the primary (but not the only) tool for doing so was to limit students’ housing choices; and that, on reflection, the system did not successfully achieve this one goal, and this particular tool had a net-negative (albeit minimal) impact on campus life. There are interesting lessons there and interesting points to be made about that — and plenty of room for you to gloat, as this was the key point of dispute in the system. And I suspect that you and I are even likely to disagree about why it was this part of the plan didn’t work (is the idea of house allegiance fundamentally inconsistent with the way in which the Williams’ housing stock is set up; or was Williams’ execution of this vision fatally flawed from the outset?). That would be a far more interesting argument than quibbling over whether this is by far the worst thing that Williams has ever done (the answer is obviously no) or whether literally every single aspect of the Neighborhood System was a failure (the answer is obviously no).

#7 Comment By David Dudley Field ’25 On January 12, 2018 @ 5:14 pm

abl: Specifics are helpful!

multi-part system . . . complex multi-part system . . . numerous design elements

Details, please. What specific aspect of Neighborhood Housing are you talking about?

I agree that many CUL members wanted to:

decentralize campus social planning and to diversify campus social events.

But what specific aspect of Neighborhood Housing achieved those ends? You think Baxter Fellows worked well? You think House Coordinators bring a lot to “social planning?” You think that the Neighborhood Leadership Teams have a big influence on campus social life? You think the Office of Campus Life is a big success?

#8 Comment By abl On January 12, 2018 @ 5:41 pm

Details, please. What specific aspect of Neighborhood Housing are you talking about?

Just one quick example: the system changed who was in charge of campus social planning (shifting from a centralized to a decentralized/localized/more democratic model) and changed how campus social planning was funded (again, moving from one centralized pot of money to a decentralized/distributed system). Given the way social events had been planned at Williams for a decade or longer, and given the significant role that “official” social events had played at Williams at the time (and continued to play for at least a number of years that followed–if not to the present), this was arguably the most significant part of the neighborhood system.

(The creation of the Office of Campus Life, I think, came about at around the same time but was actually mostly unrelated–but I might be wrong.)

#9 Comment By David Dudley Field ’25 On January 12, 2018 @ 11:46 pm

the system changed who was in charge of campus social planning (shifting from a centralized to a decentralized/localized/more democratic model) and changed how campus social planning was funded (again, moving from one centralized pot of money to a decentralized/distributed system)

I am not even sure if this is true and, to the extent that it is true, there is zero evidence that it was successful (and a lot of indirect evidence that it was not.)

First, note that essentially none of the changes you are discussing were mentioned in the Dudley Report (pdf). When we talk about “Neighborhood Housing,” this is the document to focus on.

Second, you are right that there were complaints about “centralized” social planning pre-2005. These complaints centered around ACE. But, guess what? ACE is still with us. Doing the same stuff today that it was doing 15 years ago. (I, personally, thought that ACE, led by folks like Drew Newman ’04) did a great job.) So, there is no good evidence that social planning is less centralized now than it was then.

Third, you might, perhaps consider the changes made by the 2002 (pdf) as part of the changes in social planning. In particular, they gave us the Office of Campus Life, the 4 new CLCs, and other bureaucracy. But these all pre-dated Neighborhood Housing. You can’t credit Neighborhood Housing for these changes when the changes existed for years before Neighborhoods came into existence.

Fourth, even if you wanted to include stuff like decreasing the power of ACE or hiring CLCs or starting the Baxter Fellow program as changes associated with Neighborhood Housing, you have to admit that all those changes failed. ACE is now as powerful as it was then. CLCs are no more. Baxter Fellows have been disbanded. Perhaps the only things that live on are the Neighborhood Leadership Teams and House Coordinators, universally regarded (by students I have talked to) as useless (virtually no students know the names of their Neighborhood presidents) or scams (HCs get preference in room draw).

I could go on . . .

#10 Comment By abl On January 13, 2018 @ 1:29 pm

I am not even sure if this is true and, to the extent that it is true, there is zero evidence that it was successful (and a lot of indirect evidence that it was not.)

This is obviously true and I honestly don’t believe you’re genuinely arguing that the same students exercised the same amount of control, resulting in the same events under 2006 Neighborhood System.

If you’re not sure about the ACE/NS-era social planning structures or their effects, that’s because you are an alum who graduated ~20 (30?) years ago and have had a fairly limited understanding of student life since then. Do you not see how bizarre it is for you, an alum many years removed from Williams, to tell me, a student who was there at the time, that your perceptions of the pre- and post- Neighborhood System experience are more accurate than mine? Of course, I am sure that there are classmates of mine who could reasonably disagree with my recollections — the Neighborhood System didn’t improve social life in every way for every person. But I am reasonably confident that, on the whole, my descriptions accurately reflect those of the majority of students around at the time. Also, you are not one of those classmates.

First, note that essentially none of the changes you are discussing were mentioned in the Dudley Report (pdf).

What? Did you even read the report? This is just from a quick scan of the document: “Consequently, social life at Williams has become increasingly dependent upon the central planning of All Campus Entertainment (ACE), an organization created by students in 2002 in response to persistent dissatisfaction with the available social options. ACE is well-funded, and works hard to plan quality events, but in virtue of the group’s mission the events it sponsors tend to be larger, more homogenous, and less frequent than was the case under the house system. Dissatisfaction with ACE is widespread, especially among juniors and seniors, who tend to avoid its events in favor of socializing with their small groups of friends or teammates, either in their suites or off-campus.”

And then from later in the document: ” The expectation [of the proposed changes] is that affiliation with a meaningful residential community will enable the flourishing of many social activities, generated at the local level, but with campus-wide impacts.”

The Dudley Report doesn’t lay out the finer details of the operation of Neighborhood Governance — but the intended effects are clear from the report. The governance structures that were actually put into place (I think by the subsequent CUL?) — including the funding structure — was plainly intended to, and did, facilitate the goals made explicit by the Dudley Report.

So, there is no good evidence that social planning is less centralized now than it was then.

Your argument is that simply by virtue of the fact that ACE existed before and also exists now, “there is no good evidence that social planning is less centralized now than it was then?” Social planning was far less centralized in the several years immediately following the neighborhood system. There is plenty of good evidence that social planning was far less centralized in the immediate years following the Neighborhood System’s introduction than it was before then. I am less familiar with how social planning works now, but the existence of ACE certainly doesn’t indicate that there isn’t other, decentralized, social planning occurring. (What I have heard leads me to believe that social planning remains less centralized now than it was then, albeit not quite at the level it was when the Neighborhood System was the strongest.)

[Y]ou might, perhaps consider the changes made by the 2002 (pdf) as part of the changes in social planning. . . . In particular, they gave us the Office of Campus Life, the 4 new CLCs, and other bureaucracy.You can’t credit Neighborhood Housing for these changes when the changes existed for years before Neighborhoods came into existence.

I’m not and I don’t. Note, none of my posts have credited any of these student life changes for anything, nor have I described these as being part of the Neighborhood System. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. This seems, by its own terms, to be a straw man, no?

you have to admit that all those changes failed. ACE is now as powerful as it was then. CLCs are no more.

Well, as you mention previously in your email, CLCs were not part of the Neighborhood system. I’m also not sure where you get that “ACE is now as powerful as it was then” — that’s not my sense of campus social planning. (And even if ACE is as powerful now, your highlighting of this supposed fact implies that you don’t really understand the purposes of the NS changes or the effects wrought by the changes.)

In any event, no, I don’t think that “all those changes failed.” My sense of current campus life — which I can’t believe is not much better than yours — is that social planning is significantly more diversified and localized than it was back in the ACE-only period–and, moreover, that this in large part a result of the changes brought about by the Neighborhood System. From what I’ve heard, I don’t think that things with the Neighborhood Leadership Teams is perfect — there’s certainly room within the current system to improve — but the persisting structures nevertheless have facilitated significant lasting improvements in campus social life/planning.

This, too, is an example of your eagerness to overstate your case and your Neighborhood System myopia. There’s an interesting discussion to be had about how/why CLCs were and were not successful — and what that tells us about campus social life and bureaucracy. There’s an interesting discussion to be had about the Baxter Fellow program and, its progeny, House Coordinators. (Neither of which should do more than touch on the Neighborhood System.) The reality of both of these programs, and what they say and reflect about attempts to improve the Williams experience, is far more nuanced than what your description would imply. But instead of trying to draw out those nuances, you use the fact that one of these programs is gone and the other has changed as an illustration of the supposed fact that “all” of the Neighborhood System’s changes failed. There is a bizarre incoherence to the fact that earlier in the same post, you (mistakenly) criticize me for attributing one of these two changes (CLCs) to the Neighborhood system — and then later use the very same change (CLCs) as an prime example of the Neighborhood System’s failure.

Honestly, David, I generally like (most of) your contributions to Ephblog, even while I disagree with many of them. For whatever reason, though, discussion of the Neighborhood System seem to get your blood boiling in such a way as to amplify your tendency towards making unsupported conclusory statements, to overstate your case, to speak with authority about aspects of the Williams student experience about which you know virtually nothing, and to generally exhibit many of your worst analytical tendencies. I think it’s a real shame, as there are some genuinely interesting (and occasionally important) things worth discussing about campus life in general and the Neighborhood System specifically — but I don’t think you’re capable of having those discussions. This blog would be best served if you permanently dropped the topic.

#11 Comment By David Dudley Field ’25 On January 13, 2018 @ 3:47 pm

The Dudley Report doesn’t lay out the finer details of the operation of Neighborhood Governance — but the intended effects are clear from the report.

We are discussing what effects, if any, “Neighborhood Housing” had on social life at Williams. Am I crazy to center that argument around a 30 page official document that spelled out Neighborhood Housing for the first time? I hope not! Your position seems to be that any change that happened at Williams around this time — or before this time? or after this time? — is “Neighborhood Housing.” That seems problematic.

But perhaps there are some areas of agreement we can find. I fully believe that your (and your classmates) viewed social life at Williams as being much better during, say, 2007-2009 then you viewed it during 2004-2006. And those views were accurate! Williams had way more events — parties, concerts, activities, student trips, et cetera — after 2007 than it had before 2006.

But the reason for this change had nothing to do with Neighborhoods per se. It was caused by the Administration tripling the amount of money it spent on student social activities. Turns out that if you give the guy in Carter House, who likes to throw parties, more money to throw parties, he will, throw more parties. And, of course, hiring lots of people — House Coordinators, Campus Life Coordinators, Baxter Fellows — to throw parties results in more parties.

Schapiro/Dudley/Roseman were smart. They (desperately!) wanted Neighborhood Housing to be a success. They knew that throwing money at the problem would help. So, they threw tons and tons of money at it. (Indeed, they were upfront about their intention to do so.)

So, if your main claim is that there were more social events and that the college spent a lot more money on things, then you are correct.

But none of that required Neighborhood Housing! The College could have just spent more money and achieved the same thing. (Triple Drew Newman’s ’04 budget, and the budget of every house president, and they would have accomplished the same.)

I am insisting that, in order to judge “Neighborhood Housing” a success, or even a partial one, you need to point to some specific aspect of the Neighborhood Housing plan other than spend more money.

#12 Comment By David Dudley Field ’25 On January 13, 2018 @ 4:02 pm

Can we also get much more specific with our dates? The Dudley Report came out in February 2005. Of course, by that date, a huge amount had already changed with regard to social planning at Williams, with the creation of the Office of Student Life back in 2003.

Indeed, to the extent that you had complaints about social life at Williams is 2003/2004/2005, who should you blame? I continue to believe that the Office of Campus Life has been a net negative, that students were happier in 97/98/99, when they had maximal control over their own affairs. Remember The Tablecloth Colors!

Then, the first Neighborhood room draw was spring 2006. So, the first year that “Neighborhood Housing” was actually implemented was 2006-2007. (And, to be fair, a proponent of Neighborhood Housing might argue that the system needed a few years to get up and running.)

My question: What specific years are we talking about? You think that Williams social life/planning was much better when compared to when? Once we have those years specified, we can talk about what caused the change you witnessed.

#13 Comment By David Dudley Field ’25 On January 13, 2018 @ 4:36 pm

social planning is significantly more diversified and localized than it was back in the ACE-only period–and, moreover, that this in large part a result of the changes brought about by the Neighborhood System

“ACE-only period” is some smooth tasting Will Dudley propaganda. You think that, prior to 2005, they didn’t have parties in Carter or keggers in Armstrong?

Let’s start with an overview of what social life was like the 80s. As best I can tell, this is the way that social life continued for the next 15 years. It was as decentralized as social life could be.

Then, around 2002-2003, house presidents were replaced with house coordinators and ACE was created. Read the linked thread for lots of discussion about the origins and purposes of these changes.

Around then you (abl) show up and find a system that is overly centralized. OK! But, just so we are clear, it was CUL that created that centralization, that funded the Office of Campus Life, that paid House Coordinators, that founded ACE. To the extent that there were problems (and I agree with your testimony that there were), we need to be clear on the history.

#14 Comment By David Dudley Field ’25 On January 13, 2018 @ 5:05 pm

Honestly, David, I generally like (most of) your contributions to Ephblog, even while I disagree with many of them. For whatever reason, though, discussion of the Neighborhood System seem to get your blood boiling

Guilty!

Discussing these things with you (and other commentators) is one of my favorite parts of EphBlog. So, thanks for engaging!

Also, I still owe you answers to some interesting questions you asked about admissions last fall. I will get to them in a week. I promise that there will be no references to Neighborhood Housing in that series!

#15 Comment By abl On January 13, 2018 @ 5:20 pm

When I talk about the pre-Neighborhood period (or “ACE-only” period), I’m talking about the roughly 2002-2005 period. I don’t know how “ACE-only” is Dudley-esque propaganda — it strikes me as being an accurate description of campus life when I arrived. For what it’s worth, I’m not Will Dudley. When I talk about the post-Neighborhood period, I’m talking largely about the roughly 2006-2010 period, except where I specify otherwise. I’d thought this was all pretty clear from the context of my posts — but now hopefully there is no confusion.

You may be correct that the Office of Campus Life really messed up campus life. Maybe the overly-centralized campus life that greeted me was the product of CUL decisions and OCL policies. You may even be right that CUL proposals have been at the root of many of campus social life problems over the past 30 years. (I suspect that there are many factors at play.) To be clear, I’m not staking out a broadly pro-CUL, pro-OCL, or pro-Dudley/Roseman/Morty viewpoint. The fact that some of the problems that the Neighborhood System sought to address–and successfully did address–could have been caused by the CUL, the OCL, or Dudley/Roseman/Morty is irrelevant to my posts. I am only pushing back on your exaggerated assertions about the Neighborhood System — the system proposed by the ~2005 CUL and implemented in 2006 (that continues to exist in a modified form today).

I’d be interested in hearing your views about some of these other topics — the role that the CUL has played in social life more generally at Williams over the decades; the impact of the creation of the Office of Campus Life; etc. But that represents a change in topic: those questions are different from the question of the role and success of the Neighborhood System — which we’re talking about now because you brought it up.