SU needs to address recent housing survey’s vague question about a three-year live-on policy

A campus-wide housing survey sent last week contained a question that asked students if they would support a three-year live-on policy if the on-campus housing experience was “transformed to meet the needs of contemporary college students.”

Students have widely criticized the vague nature of the inquiry, which came more than 80 questions into the survey. The survey was active for less than a week.

While it is important to get student feedback about housing, it is unreasonable to expect productive results to come from an ambiguous question buried deep in a survey more than 100 questions long. If SU wants useful and genuine feedback from students, they need to provide more information about why they are asking about a three-year live-on policy, and they need to tell students what that policy, if enacted, would look like.

SU officials first presented the possibility of a three-year on-campus housing requirement for students at a February 2017 Campus Framework open forum. The Campus Framework is a 20-year initiative meant to transform the university’s campus. The proposal to require on-campus living for an additional year accompanied discussions about moving student housing away from South Campus, specifically for freshmen and sophomores.

It is unclear how SU would accommodate that many more students on Main Campus. The Campus Framework draft calls for a total of 3,600 new beds to be constructed on Main Campus. For context, Ernie Davis Hall, SU’s newest dorm, houses 250 students. Its construction cost $54 million.

But students are concerned about more than just the logistics of new Main Campus housing. The university has yet to provide answers that substantively address how a three-year live-on policy would be beneficial for a majority of the student body.

Vice Chancellor and Provost Michele Wheatly cited findings from a 2014 MyCampus survey that stated students liked living on campus to better access resources. She referenced research that she said shows students who live on campus longer tend to have higher retention rates and perform better in classes.

Those supposed benefits address only a narrow scope of the student experience, though. The costs directly associated with on-campus living, as well as additional required costs such as meal plans, adversely affect students who might struggle to pay for an additional year on campus. For students navigating the finances of attending SU, a third year of mandatory on-campus living certainly does not set the stage for peak academic performance — it disadvantages them while their university makes more money.

The survey’s obscure reference to student housing that meets “the needs of contemporary college students” provides little clarity. The question did not specify what resources, services or accommodations new facilities might have that would make them more desirable places to live.

Students also took issue with the question’s placement in what many considered an unnecessarily lengthy survey. For a question with considerable implications, the university did not put it in a position that would assure students stuck around long enough to answer it. And for those who did stick around, SU did not provide the critical context students needed to fairly respond.

Students are justified in feeling caught off guard by the question. It is one deserving of more explanation than SU provided to students, and it provokes even more questions that the university has not had the chance to comprehensively address.

Housing — its monetary, academic and social costs — is deeply personal for many SU students. Discussions that fundamentally affect how students navigate college life deserve more than a vague mention at the end of a hundred question survey students had less than a week to complete.

SU officials should explore ways to speak to students about housing and the Campus Framework that do not inherently undermine the importance of those conversations. If they want productive feedback — to understand the nuanced and widely diverse implications of a three-year live-on policy — they need to talk to students. They need organized meetings and forums. They need to provide details. And they need to show students that they understand the gravity of what they are proposing.

The Daily Orange Editorial Board serves as the voice of the organization and aims to contribute the perspectives of students to discussions that concern Syracuse University and the greater Syracuse community. The editorial board’s stances are determined by a majority of its members. You can read more about the editorial board here. Are you interested in pitching a topic for the editorial board to discuss? Email opinion@dailyorange.com.