2008 Woodie Awards
Housing Office should apologize
Issue date: 3/19/03 Section: Editorials
Finding housing at just about any campus in America can be an interminable, painful process. No university makes all of its students happy year in and year out; the inevitable vagaries of a lottery make such an outcome impossible. At nearby George Washington, for example, rising sophomores are faced with the prospect of spending their year in Virginia. But the manner in which Georgetown addressed its housing problems this year stands out for its callousness.
Predicting the behavior of several thousand college students is not easy. As such, the University's inability to foresee this year's increase in demand for housing is partially understandable, though revelations that the Student Housing Advisory Committee recognized the potential problem last fall make the mistake less forgivable. What is unequivocally not right is the University's response after the housing lottery revealed several hundred students would not be receiving the housing they were expecting. The University offered neither apology nor solution. Nor did the school do so last year or three years ago when similar disasters plagued the housing selection process.
Unlike other schools that have rectified similar problems by renting out hotels or otherwise providing alternative housing, Georgetown did nothing. The Office of Off-Campus Housing remained open; the Office's website remained online. But Georgetown has not been pro-active in addressing students' concerns.
Solving the problem outright is likely impossible. Still, several steps could have made the situation better for all involved. First, the Housing Office should have issued a formal apology to those students denied housing and/or apartments. The Office did make a mistake, and the administration must be willing to admit as much. Second, at the very least, the University should have offered to act as an agent for students forced to seek off-campus housing. The University, bargaining on behalf of several dozen students and aided by a very capable legal staff, would be much more capable than panicked students. While far from perfect, such a step would have been an indication of the University's willingness to work for students and a sign that the school took its obligations to the student body seriously.
If Georgetown decided that acting as a broker for its students was ineffectual, it was still incumbent upon the University to do something. Ignoring a problem is not policy; it compounds, rather than solves, the school's difficulties. Sadly, the University collectively seems all too content to approach many problems in the same way. It has not worked before, and it will not work here.
Predicting the behavior of several thousand college students is not easy. As such, the University's inability to foresee this year's increase in demand for housing is partially understandable, though revelations that the Student Housing Advisory Committee recognized the potential problem last fall make the mistake less forgivable. What is unequivocally not right is the University's response after the housing lottery revealed several hundred students would not be receiving the housing they were expecting. The University offered neither apology nor solution. Nor did the school do so last year or three years ago when similar disasters plagued the housing selection process.
Unlike other schools that have rectified similar problems by renting out hotels or otherwise providing alternative housing, Georgetown did nothing. The Office of Off-Campus Housing remained open; the Office's website remained online. But Georgetown has not been pro-active in addressing students' concerns.
Solving the problem outright is likely impossible. Still, several steps could have made the situation better for all involved. First, the Housing Office should have issued a formal apology to those students denied housing and/or apartments. The Office did make a mistake, and the administration must be willing to admit as much. Second, at the very least, the University should have offered to act as an agent for students forced to seek off-campus housing. The University, bargaining on behalf of several dozen students and aided by a very capable legal staff, would be much more capable than panicked students. While far from perfect, such a step would have been an indication of the University's willingness to work for students and a sign that the school took its obligations to the student body seriously.
If Georgetown decided that acting as a broker for its students was ineffectual, it was still incumbent upon the University to do something. Ignoring a problem is not policy; it compounds, rather than solves, the school's difficulties. Sadly, the University collectively seems all too content to approach many problems in the same way. It has not worked before, and it will not work here.