|
Campus Life Task Force Report, Spring 2000
Office of Campus Life and Student Services
Brown University
Box 1896
(401) 863-1800
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Campus Life Task Force was convened in January 2000, with
a charge to conduct a broad review and assessment of campus life at Brown and to
identify a framework for planning initiatives the University should undertake
during the next one to five years. The Task Force developed several
recommendations based on its own deliberations and on targeted conversations
with faculty, students and administrators. This report outlines the preliminary
recommendations of the Task Force after thirteen weeks of exploration and
deliberation. The Task Force welcomes feedback from the University community to
strengthen and expand upon its conclusions.
Many of the recommendations of the Campus Life Task Force stem
from the central notion of converting Brown’s current residential
structure to a system of Residential Clusters – active living and learning
environments – that the Task Force believes will reconnect our educational
and residential systems, facilitate meaningful student-faculty interaction, and
help develop a sense of community and continuity among students. The Task Force
recommends phasing in a system of Residential Clusters by implementing two pilot
Clusters in the fall of 2001 – one made possible by renovations to
Emery-Woolley and Morriss-Champlin, one created by adjustments to the Wriston
Quad – before expanding progressively to encompass the entire residential
system. The residential cluster model incorporates residence halls with expanded
common and program space, significant faculty affiliation, and substantial
academic and community building programming (e.g., academic advising in the
dorm, community service projects) to facilitate a living-learning focus in a
residential context.
In its review of campus life issues and future directions for
Brown, the Campus Life Task Force identified principles it believes represent
core values of the University. Programmatic initiatives and physical plant
changes should support and help fulfill the following principles:
- Campus life programs, both residential and non-residential, must
support and enhance the academic mission and the broad educational purposes of
the University.
Brown should pursue development
of a system of Residential Clusters as a method of creating active
living-learning environments.
Brown must provide sufficient common space on campus, and
determine how best to make common spaces accessible to the campus community. In
particular, University residence halls must have a minimum complement of common
spaces, services and resident personnel dedicated to the integration of living
and learning.
The University should consider seriously the proposal put
forward by the University Library to create the Information Resources Center
that is an expanded and reconfigured library. Task Force members also argued
strongly that the University should pursue additional locations for the creative
and performing arts as means to develop collaborative projects among students
and faculty for the Brown and larger Providence communities.
- Campus life programs, both residential and non-residential, must
complement and affirm the University’s commitment to diversity and
pluralism. Brown, in its programming and in the design of physical structures,
must be able to support the health of smaller communities or
“neighborhoods” as well as encourage significant cross-community
interaction and learning.
Brown must continue to
pursue programming that addresses community values issues throughout the
academic year and throughout students’ tenure at Brown. This Task Force
believes that the residential cluster model specifically supports the Visiting
Committee on Diversity’s recommendation that “Brown create more and
broader opportunities for the study of diversity-related intellectual questions
and that Brown create more collaborative opportunities for exposure to such
questions.”
The University and students must assess the current reliance
on student initiative to address and resolve community living issues. We must
actively encourage student-faculty-administration partnerships and
collaborations. A residential living–learning environment should include
an intentional series of discussions that explore what it means to live at Brown
and in the world today, the challenges of creating inclusive, democratic
communities.
- The academic, professional development, and community needs of
graduate and medical students must be an institutional priority in the
development of campus life programs and initiatives.
Ideally, graduate and medical students will be
more fully integrated into the life of the University, yet Brown must also
strengthen programming and support services that address the specific needs of
graduate and medical students. The University must take steps to improve study
and research spaces and computer access for graduate students whose needs are
not met within their home departments; pursue improving the residential options
for graduate and medical students; and ensure that University resources and
services address year-round graduate student schedules.
The University should continue to pursue efforts to enhance
the flow of communication with graduate and medical students, and create spaces
where medical and graduate students from different parts of the University have
the opportunity to interact and create cross-discipline communities.
- In order to achieve its academic and broad educational mission, the
University must encourage and augment the quality of the interaction between
faculty and students in the residential environment and in other programmatic
contexts.
We must enhance and encourage the
interaction between faculty and students in the living environment. Working
from the Faculty Fellows Program as a base, the Residential Clusters proposal
focuses specifically on expanded faculty-student interaction. The University
must facilitate opportunities for the open exchange of ideas between faculty and
undergraduate and graduate students, provide spaces that support such
involvement, and identify appropriate incentives and support for faculty-student
activities.
- University programs, both academic and co-curricular, must support
more intentionally and respond to the developmental needs of all students.
The offices and programs of Campus Life &
Student Services and of the Dean of the College should develop a program
statement identifying how they assist students in developing the skills they
need to participate successfully in a campus as diverse as Brown.
Residential programming and resource staff should serve
students of all class years.
Disability access should remain a priority in renovation and
construction of the physical plant.
The Task Force in its deliberations focused mostly on
Brown’s strengths in order to build on them. The Task Force believes that
its findings and recommendations capitalize and enhance the qualities and values
that define Brown’s broad educational aspirations and greatly appreciates
the generous contributions of faculty, students and staff as it completed its
work.
INTRODUCTION
The Campus Life Task Force was charged by the President to
conduct a broad review and assessment of campus life at Brown, and to identify a
framework for several planning initiatives for campus life that the University
should consider during the next few years. Vice President of Campus Life and
Student Services Janina Montero chaired the Task Force, which included members
of the faculty and administration, along with undergraduate, graduate and
medical students. The following institutional goals guided the Task Force
deliberations:
- Brown should foster and support a coherent
integration of the curricular and co-curricular program, to ensure that every
part of the University functions as a true living and learning
community;
- Brown must hold an unwavering
commitment to diversity and pluralism;
- Brown, as
an educational community, should encourage and promote inclusiveness, generosity
of spirit, and civic engagement among all its
members;
- Brown should find ways to involve
graduate students more fully in the life of the
University.
METHODOLOGY
A compressed timeline allowed thirteen weeks for the group to
explore issues and create a report of findings and recommendations. The Task
Force met weekly, with a few additional meetings, to assess the overall
environment of campus life and to identify primary forces that facilitate or
hinder an open and inclusive learning and living community. The Task Force
heard from deans, department heads, University staff and students with expertise
in each area. A more in-depth summary of the questions addressed in each Task
Force meeting can be found in Appendix A: Task Force Agenda.
Each Task Force member received background materials relevant
to the current deliberations; this included results of recent satisfaction
surveys of undergraduate and graduate students at Brown, reports from previous
committees addressing residential and campus life issues, and detailed
information about the residential facilities on campus.
The following topics were considered:
Living and Learning Environments
Graduate and Medical Student Issues
The Campus Master Plan
Residential and Dining Facilities and Programs
Residential Housing Models at Other Colleges and
Universities
Athletics and Physical Education and Student
Activities
College Admission and Alumni Relations
The Faculty Fellows Program
Living and Learning
Both the Dean of the College and the Dean of Student Life
presented information supporting the need to integrate learning and living more
proactively at Brown. Task Force members were asked to consider how the core
values embedded in the Brown curriculum - choice, diversity,
interdisciplinarity, independence and responsibility - are expressed in the
co-curricular environment. Discussion focused on learning in both academic and
non-classroom settings (e.g., volunteer and service activities, skills-oriented
learning leadership development), recognizing that students do not isolate their
academic life from their living or other learning experiences, and asking what
Brown can do to provide forms of support to connect the two.
There was general agreement as to the value of structures that
encourage partnerships between students and faculty, and students and
administrators. Often there must be a balance between freedom and structure,
between students operating entirely on their own and having a sense of history
and continuity. Another topic of discussion addressed strengths and weaknesses
of Brown’s housing and residential system in terms of fostering community.
Other residential models were discussed and compared to Brown’s needs and
aspirations.
Graduate and Medical Student Needs
The task force found that needs of graduate and medical
students are often overlooked, and that these vibrant, rich populations are not
as well integrated into the University as a whole. Members of the medical
school brought up concerns such as inadequacies in study space, library
resources and common spaces that impede professional and community development.
Graduate students described as significant concerns health insurance, career
services, summer funding, housing, and child care. Brown’s service
departments and services are – or are perceived to be – primarily
focused on undergraduate students. While there have been significant efforts to
understand and provide for the specific needs of graduate and medical students,
progress has been uneven.
Campus Master Plan
The Hillier Group provided insight into Brown’s
architectural and structural resources. Brown’s campus is “land
poor” in that it is located within the city with little opportunity for
expansion. In order to make the best use of the land that Brown has, it is
important to plan and act deliberately now.
Residential and Dining Facilities and Programs
A review of campus dining and residential spaces focused on
how these areas could develop a coherent balance between meeting students’
specific dining and residential needs and diversifying these spaces so they can
also incorporate other important aspects of campus life such as aspects of the
University’s broad educational program and community building.
Residential Models at Other Institutions
The Task Force reviewed residential programs at Cornell,
Dartmouth, Duke, Stanford, the University of Michigan and the University of
Pennsylvania to identify “best practices” and to get a broader sense
of the kinds of successful initiatives that comparable institutions have
implemented during the last few years. Bearing in mind Brown’s unique
liberal philosophy and current campus culture, the Task Force discussed the
benefits and drawbacks of the following models: a separate freshman campus;
organizing residences according to academic or extracurricular interests; and
residential college systems.
Athletics and Physical Education; Student Activities
A review of aspects of campus life outside of the academic
program and residential living revealed that Brown’s existing
resources—such as space, personnel, equipment, and classes—are
severely limited, especially in comparison with peer institutions. Suggestions
to address inadequacies ranged from creating accessible fitness centers in dorms
or building a fitness center with extended hours of operation including Friday
and Saturday nights (providing healthy alternatives to drinking). A review of
student activities also revealed inadequate space and staff to support and
oversee facilities; for example, performance spaces, a nice space to hold events
for a graduation class, office and storage space for student organizations, and
common space for retreat or quiet activities are currently in short
supply.
College Admission and Alumni Relations
The Task Force considered the importance of keeping alumni
connected with the campus and reinforcing the idea of lifelong Brown
citizenship. The Alumni Office clearly recognizes that different populations on
campus experience Brown in different ways, and that identifying the source of
these experiences can hold the key to long-term alumni loyalty and connection
with the University.
A discussion of the other end of the continuum –
admissions – provided insight into applicants’ perceptions of Brown. The
Director of Admissions described why students choose a liberal, residential
college now as well as in the future and why some admitted students opt to
attend schools other than Brown. In this discussion, and in the discussion on
alumni relations, the group cited as one of Brown’s principal strengths
the types of student it attracts. Current Brown students influence others to
attend, and many alumni continue to state that their Brown experience was shaped
most by their relationships and interactions with other Brown
students.
Faculty Fellows
A meeting with Faculty Fellows provided a review of the
history of the program; of the range of programming offered currently; of the
many intangible ways in which Faculty Fellows contribute to the development of
students and to the quality of campus life; and of resource
constraints.
UNIVERSITY CONTEXT AND CONSTRAINTS
The Task Force considered the issue of resource management
throughout its work and as it developed recommendations. Brown’s
obligation to manage resources wisely and efficiently provided one of the
primary backdrops against which discussion occurred and options were considered.
The Task Force, therefore, does not propose widespread razing and construction
of entirely new physical structures, considering that the magnitude of the
expense would render such a recommendation of little utility.
The Task Force previously focused on what works well at Brown
now and why; where gaps exist in the quality of campus life for undergraduate,
graduate and medical students; and what opportunities exist for the University
to pursue new initiatives in academic and campus life. The Task Force also
considered in all its deliberations the complex relationship between physical
plant and programming at Brown and proposes that in order to maximize resource
efficiency, changes in physical plant and programming must consider the
following:
- Maintain flexibility
Planning efforts and recommendations for structural changes
must strive to retain the highest level of flexibility in order to maximize
space utilization and financial resources. Thus, multi-purpose spaces should be
favored whenever possible. For example, a relatively spacious room in a
residence hall that is supplied with table, chairs, dry-erase board and good
lighting can function as a seminar room for class or section meetings, a study
space for group projects, a meeting space for student groups, and 24-hour study
space when not in use for group meetings.
- Identify and focus on essential services
While it might be ideal to have every service available in
every residence hall (i.e., computer cluster, studio space, practice space,
exercise facilities, study space, leisure and recreational facilities, etc.),
the University at this time cannot afford this approach. We must identify
initially what is necessary in each residence hall to support students in their
academic and personal development and those components necessary to ensure the
ongoing development of the living–learning environment.
- Balance security and access
There must be a balance between the equally important
priorities of providing security and allowing access to residence hall spaces.
Several potential common spaces in the University are not available for
University-community use due to security–access issues. For example, the
side dining rooms in Sharpe Refectory could be used as meeting rooms through the
evening hours if it were possible to allow access to those rooms while securing
the remainder of the facility. Similarly, the current physical structures of
many University buildings do not allow partial access and use.
On the other hand, several existing spaces in residence halls
are not used because residents do not have easy access – either physical
access or the ability to reserve the rooms for use. Potential for theft or
vandalism of furniture and equipment in common areas, and varying levels of
supervision (e.g., for computer areas or fitness rooms) are also important
aspects to consider in the design of spaces and programs.
- Consider the Value of Individual Choice
Brown has a long-standing tradition and practice of providing
students with a range of options whenever possible. Choice is the cornerstone
of the Brown curriculum and of many of Brown’s endeavors. The Residential
Cluster model proposed in this report requires substantial changes in the
approach to student residence, changes designed to provide a level of continuity
and increase opportunities for community-building, changes which might also
impose a measure of limitation on choice. The Task Force found that focusing
consistently on the Residential Cluster model, but offering variations on the
theme, would allow Brown to implement an active living-learning framework, while
also addressing physical plant issues and accommodating the value of
choice.
CAMPUS LIFE PRINCIPLES
There is significant opportunity in the University to address
campus life needs (most of which have been identified time and time again during
the last ten years) through residential programming and facilities. Adjustments
in the housing system alone, however, cannot be expected to address all campus
life issues. In order for Brown to pursue the coherent integration of the
curricular and co-curricular program, the University must address specific
issues through campus-wide programming and support services and
structures.
In its review of campus life issues and future directions for
Brown, the Campus Life Task Force identified principles it believes the
University must uphold. These principles represent core values of the
University, therefore programmatic initiatives and construction projects must be
evaluated to determine the extent to which they in fact support and fulfill
these principles. Relevant University offices and programs should attempt
systematically to incorporate these principles in program statements and in the
design of new construction or physical plant renovations.
- Campus life programs, both residential and non-residential,
must support and enhance the academic mission and the broad educational purposes
of the University.
- Campus life programs, both residential and non-residential,
must complement and affirm the University’s commitment to diversity and
pluralism. Brown, in its programming and in the design of physical structures,
must be able to support the health of smaller communities or
“neighborhoods” as well as encourage significant cross-community
interaction and learning.
- The academic, professional development, and community needs
of graduate and medical students must be an institutional priority in the
development of campus life programs and initiatives.
- In order to achieve its academic and broad educational
mission, the University must encourage and augment the quality of the
interaction between faculty and students in the residential environment and in
other programmatic contexts.
- University programs, both academic and co-curricular, must
support more intentionally and respond to the developmental needs of all
students.
RESIDENTIAL CLUSTERS – A MODEL TO CONSIDER
“Living” systems and “learning”
systems at Brown are based on certain common core values: choice, diversity,
interdisciplinarity, independence, innovation, and community. These values are
expressed in the educational philosophy that grounds the curriculum at Brown, as
well as in the content of the curriculum and in the breadth of services designed
to support it. These values are expressed also in the vast range of educational
activities that exist alongside the classroom experience and which account for a
large part of both the “Brown experience” and students’ sense
of their own educational processes. Finally, these values are fundamental to an
effective residential model.
While Brown’s academic, educational and residential
systems rest on essentially the same core principles, in practice and over time
the University has come to separate enterprises that are in reality conceptually
connected. Students and guest participants in Task Force discussions repeatedly
expressed an interest in more faculty/student interaction outside the classroom,
for greater connection and coherence between the services of the Offices of
Student Life and the Dean of the College, for more coordinated and open
interaction among student groups, and for greater opportunities for
collaboration.
Two relatively recent challenges in higher education support
the case for the thorough integration of academic, co-curricular and residential
experiences. First, technology has significantly changed the use of space,
allowing students to perform tasks in their rooms and homes which previously
were possible only in designated public spaces. Since technology has the
potential to promote levels of isolation, at a residential college like Brown we
must articulate more clearly the role of the residential in a Brown
education. Second, the increasing diversity of students (personal and
educational background, perspectives, range of needs, etc.) is both an
invaluable resource (data suggest that diversity promotes educational
achievement) but also present a challenge for institutions in the delivery of
services, in the articulation of objectives and so forth.
A theme in virtually every meeting of the Task Force was the
need for a greater sense of community and a more explicit shared sense of the
Brown community. Especially in the context of a university, some efforts at
community building should be deliberately related to learning so that the
process to build community does not appear to compete with academic and broad
educational goals. In fact, the need to build community should support and
enhance the academic mission. Students will always build communities of interest
(e.g., theatre, student organizations) and many students find meaningful
“neighborhoods” to be outgrowths of their academic interest (e.g.
Departmental Undergraduate Groups). However, the desire for faculty/student
interaction might suggest that students think of community as something that
must be built apart from their intellectual interests.
It should be noted that there are also important economies
inherent in living and learning communities because they tend to utilize
resources much better. The separation of curricular, co-curricular and
residential service systems often results in duplication of effort – a
clear example of which is the pervasive request of faculty, staff and students
to offer iterations of programs to splintered constituencies.
Our current residential architecture is based on a plan in
which all first-year students live together but upperclass students move yearly
according to the availability of better living spaces. If we want to build
living and learning communities (both with and apart from the cluster model the
Task Force proposes in this report) we must alter that architecture; the cluster
approach offers a way to build an option for multi-year living. It will be
important to continue efforts to equalize housing options, and perhaps also
modify the room assignment/lottery system to encourage students to remain in the
same residential area worthwhile.
To support an intentional living-learning environment in the
residential setting, the Task Force proposes to reconceptualize student housing
at Brown by developing Residential Clusters. Residential Clusters link
residence halls with strategic common and program space, and incorporate
significant faculty affiliation and programming to facilitate a focus on
living-learning goals in a residential context.
The goals of the Residential Clusters are:
- To create a residential system that provides
strong programmatic support for students’ intellectual and personal
development, appropriate integration of curricular and co-curricular learning,
enhanced faculty-student interaction, and community development.
- To maintain reasonable choice for students
regarding housing options while creating viable smaller communities within the
campus community.
- To encourage among students a
sense of stewardship for a local neighborhood (the cluster), and also for the
larger community of Brown.
Physical plant
A Residential Cluster would consist physically of a residence
hall, or halls, with common spaces in the building(s) to support group
activities as well as individual studies. Common spaces in the residential
cluster will be best utilized if they are multipurpose and accessible to cluster
residents. Having a variety of residential options (e.g., doubles, singles,
suites) available within each cluster is essential to encourage long-term
residence.
Architectural realities pose some difficulty. Currently,
there is considerable variety and disparity among the residential spaces
available at Brown. The Task Force recommends phasing in a system of Residential
Clusters beginning with those areas on campus that lend themselves more easily
to such organization, and expanding progressively to encompass the entire
residential system. Due to location on campus and specific architecture,
different clusters will require different constellations of services, amenities
and types of spaces.
Programming within the Cluster
- Faculty affiliation – Faculty Fellows would lead efforts to develop a
faculty presence in the cluster. While the Faculty Fellows would be the
“faculty in residence” for the cluster, a number of additional
faculty members would be affiliated with a cluster to provide academic advising
and connection for a consistent set of students. Students could be assigned
faculty advisors affiliated with their cluster. Advising and meetings with
faculty could take place in a nice lounge or reading room or living room in the
residence hall (see Appendix 3). This approach would also provide continuity
of advising for students and for faculty beyond the first year. Graduate and
medical students may also be incorporated as Graduate Fellows, participating
actively in providing academic advising and mentoring.
- Residential staff
– A program of staff in residence, such as the Community Director and
affiliated counseling programs, could provide support for the Faculty Fellows
program and the development of the learning and living community.
- Academic
support services – Selected academic support services could be offered in
a decentralized manner, with specific student-personnel associated with each
cluster for “locally-available” assistance. For example, services
supported by the Writing Center and the tutoring program, computer help, and
study skills sessions could be affiliated with each cluster (see Appendix 3).
- Activities - Organized activities that bring together members of the
cluster (e.g., community service projects, panel discussions, intramural sports,
group artistic endeavors, social events) will be an integral part of developing
community within the cluster.
- Local student government – There should
be a local student governance board and/or a cluster representative to the UCS,
as well as cluster programming boards.
- Facilities and amenities – Each
cluster should contain a particular complement of practice rooms, study carrels,
computer access and support, small snack area, fitness
area.
Remaining questions
- First-Year students – The Task Force discussed various arguments for
and against maintaining a separate First-Year Experience. A Residential Cluster
approach could function to integrate first-year, sophomore and junior students;
or could be focused on sophomores and juniors, while maintaining a first-year
experience that is partially or entirely a separate cluster. The developmental
issues of first-year students are different from those of sophomores and
juniors. However, it is mostly during the first semester that first-year
students require a more intense level of support to assist them with the
transition to college life. First-year residence halls that are physically part
of a cluster would encourage the integration of first-year students more
progressively into the cluster in the second semester. Moreover, this model
allows for offering incoming students a choice between a frosh separate
experience or a fully-integrated cluster experience.
- Cluster identity – To the greatest extent possible, each cluster would be broadly representative
of Brown as a whole. But some clusters might have a particular focus, e.g.,
through the different program houses. Program houses must be part of and
participants in a Residential Cluster; they should not be subsumed by the
cluster but neither should they remain entirely separate from the cluster
system. It is reasonable to imagine that characteristics would develop specific
to each cluster. For example, all clusters could have community service
components, but there might be one cluster that is more strongly identified with
community service; one cluster might have more music practice space but would
not house all musicians.
- Graduate and Medical students – The
Task Force recommends incorporating graduate and medical students in the concept
of residential clusters for housing and programming whenever possible. Perhaps a
modest way to achieve the integration of graduate and medical students is to
funnel systematically to them information about events in particular clusters,
to encourage but not insist on participation. Graduate and medical students may
also be incorporated into the cluster as Graduate Fellows, participating
actively by providing academic advising and mentoring. Fifth-year
master’s students, of whom there are an increasing number, may be more
likely to attach themselves to a cluster if the option were available. The Task
Force understands there are plans for development of a graduate housing complex
on Pitman Street that will meet many of the needs articulated here and
elsewhere, and that might lend itself to a modified cluster system specific to
graduate students.
- Residence Assignment – To the greatest extent
possible, each cluster should be broadly representative of Brown as a whole as
it is important to maintain the diversity of the Brown community in the midst of
the cluster idea. First-year students would be assigned randomly to clusters.
Sophomores and juniors could move among clusters, although frequent moving could
jeopardize the sense of residential continuity within the cluster. The
University might consider weighting the housing lottery to encourage students to
stay in their original clusters beyond their first year.
RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of its discussions with guest participants, the
careful review of materials and its own deliberations, the Task Force developed
specific recommendations as follows:
- Campus life programs, both residential and non-residential, must
support and enhance the academic mission and the broad educational purposes of
the University.
Unequivocally, Brown is moving in
pursuit of a more intentional and integrated living-learning environment. This
should occur through residential systems as well as through non-residential or
“public” approaches.
Specifics include:
- Brown should pursue development of a system of
Residential Clusters, as outlined above, as a method of creating an active
living-learning environment.
- University residence
halls, whether in a cluster or not, must have a minimum complement of space and
services conducive to the integration of living and learning (e.g., spaces that
facilitate the use of technology, reading rooms, seminar rooms, and class or
section meeting spaces). Residence halls must also have sufficient common
spaces to support social interaction and leisure
activities.
- The Faculty Fellows program provides
Brown with a model of fostering interaction and informal relationship between
faculty and students. This program has a well-established history at Brown, and
has had many dedicated faculty participants. While the focus over time has been
mostly “hospitality”, this system provides a fruitful basis from
which to develop a much enhanced and more structured system that would anchor
the living and learning experience. The faculty of course are the best locus to
encourage life of the mind and to help explore in thoughtful, on-going ways
topics that are of great importance to the Brown community (e.g., pluralism and
diversity, activism, leadership, service).
While the
Faculty Fellows program is intended to serve all students, and while some
upperclass students take advantage of the program, the largest component of
Faculty Fellows program work is with first-year students. An expansion of the
Faculty Fellows program could also benefit seniors, graduate and medical
students, who could be brought into the intellectual and broad educational
conversation and into the community-building programs both as participants and
mentors. Organized events in the clusters could be designed to bring together
students and faculty for unstructured discussion of general academic goals and
other topics.
- The University should consider seriously the
proposal put forward by the University Library for an Information Resources
Center. An expanded and reconfigured library, such as is envisioned by the
library proposal, would address in interesting ways many of the needs and
concerns raised in the Task Force’s deliberations about non-residential
“living-learning” and encouraging intellectual curiosity and
endeavors for the entire campus community.
- Within
this framework, we must look at how residentially-based counseling and advising
programs can best support the learning and living experience, the academic and
developmental needs of students, the institutional commitment to diversity and
pluralism, and the development of communities and community.
- Brown should explore opportunities to assist and
expand living-learning programming through the residential Program Houses and
the non-residential Third World Center and Sarah Doyle Women’s Center.
Program houses and the centers currently already provide successful programs on
campus that address the intersection of the academic and the personal, of living
and learning. Program houses such as Machado House encompass some of the
integration that is a goal of the Residential Cluster proposal. The Third World
and Sarah Doyle Women’s Centers support student organizations in the
development of initiatives and programming around important cultural issues;
Brown should determine how best to support and enhance the roles these centers
serve on campus.
- Task Force members responded
enthusiastically to the idea of developing year-long cluster projects that
integrate living and learning. Arts projects and initiatives that encourage all
members of the cluster to participate in the creation, display and presentation
of art that reflects the cluster community hold special promise. Students could
also participate in determining the student visual art that might decorate some
common spaces.
- Task Force members argued
strongly that the University should pursue additional locations for the creative
and performing arts – such as converting T.F. Green Hall to accommodate
additional student practice and performance space, converting 50 John Street to
a studio space, or identifying a building in the downtown Providence Arts
district that would support the interaction of art, service and
education.
- Brown must pursue providing sufficient
common or “public” space available on campus, determine how best to
make these spaces accessible to the campus community, and consider not just
indoor spaces but also the relationship between indoor and outdoor public
spaces.
- Campus life programs, both residential and non-residential, must
complement and affirm the University’s commitment to diversity and
pluralism. Brown, in its programming and in the design of physical structures,
must be able to support the health of smaller communities or
“neighborhoods” as well as encourage significant cross-community
interaction and learning.
Diversity and pluralism
are critical to developing a true living and learning environment. The Visiting
Committee on Diversity has provided Brown with a series of observations and
recommendations that parallel many of the concerns expressed in Campus Life Task
Force discussions. In light of their report, we must evaluate how to implement
campus life initiatives adequately to address issues of diversity and pluralism,
of individual and community development, and community responsibility.
To quote the Visiting Committee’s report: “The
high profile of individualism on campus is laudable, as is the creativity it
inspires, but it can work against a sense of shared community and the notion of
shared responsibility for the character and quality of the Brown
experience.” And, as Edgar Beckham expresses, there is fluidity in
concepts of community that must be considered with care as we move forward with
residential and campus programming: “The pluralist ideal focuses on
distinct communities. Current understandings of diversity recognize that these
communities are becoming less distinct; that individuals are members of multiple
distinct communities and move among them, feel simultaneous membership in more
than one, and may shift primary allegiance from one to another. Indeed, they
may choose not to choose between or among them. The communities still exist, so
the pluralist ideal should persists as an objective, but we should recognize
that membership in distinct communities is not fixed."
It is essential that Brown find ways to bridge the gap between
individual development and a sense of responsibility to the community, two
themes integral to the Brown experience. We must recognize that many at Brown
experience the University as fragmented and on occasion even inhospitable. As
Brown struggles with how best to develop a community out of a diverse
population, we must also recognize that this is one of the most complex
challenges for our society.
Specifics include:
- Brown must continue to pursue programming that
addresses community values and issues throughout the academic year and
throughout students’ tenure at Brown. This Task Force supports the
Visiting Committee on Diversity’s recommendation that “Brown create
more and broader opportunities for the study of diversity-related intellectual
questions and that Brown create more collaborative opportunities for exposure to
such questions.” Morever, the Task Force believes that the residential
cluster model can provide fruitful formats for the exploration of these
questions.
- The University and students must
review the current excessive reliance on student initiative to address and
resolve community living issues. While it is essential to support and encourage
student initiative and activism - and indeed student initiative and programming
is woven into the fabric of Brown’s culture – the University may
have abdicated some of its responsibility in these matters. We must actively
encourage student-faculty-administration partnerships and collaborations.
- A residential living–learning environment
should include an intentional series of discussions about what it means to live
at Brown and in the world today. Topics such as individual and community
identity, and diversity and pluralism would provide the framework for
mini-seminars led by faculty linked with specific clusters, film screenings and
discussion, and town meetings.
- The academic, professional development and community needs of
graduate and medical students must be an institutional priority in the
development of campus life programs and
initiatives.
Brown is as much a university as it
is a college, and graduate and medical students play an essential role in
research, teaching, and the overall intellectual life of the campus. However,
the visible and organized student life activities on campus are geared primarily
to undergraduate students. In addition, graduate students are naturally focused
on work and activities within their academic departments. While in many cases
strong departmental communities support their graduate students, in others
graduate students feel a sense of isolation and a lack of support. Many medical
students report feeling disconnected from the larger University. This Task
Force, therefore, recommends that more attention and resources be allocated
toward addressing the specific needs of graduate and medical students, with an
emphasis on underlining the valuable role played by these students, and
providing stronger links between graduate and medical students across the
University.
Specifics include:
- Brown should pursue improving the residential
options for graduate and medical students, including on-campus
housing.
- The University must strengthen
programming and support services that address the specific needs of graduate and
medical students.
- As a means of improving
connection to the University community, Brown must continue to pursue and
support efforts to enhance communication with and among graduate and medical
students. The Graduate Student Listserve is one current effort to connect
graduate students with each other and to provide them with information about the
University community.
- We must create spaces where
medical and graduate students from different parts of the University have the
opportunity to interact and create cross-campus communities. Ideally, graduate
and medical students will be more fully integrated into the life of the
University. If Brown pursues development of a campus center and/or an expanded
and enhanced library, the needs of all students may be addressed in that way.
In the absence of such significant space available to all students, it is now
difficult for graduate and medical students to share with undergraduates the
limited resources, and therefore some dedicated facilities for graduate and
medical students may be necessary.
- Brown must
work to improve study and research spaces and computer access for graduate
students whose needs are not met fully within their home departments.
- Brown should ensure that University resources
and services are responsive to the year-round schedules of graduate
students.
- In order to support and enhance the academic mission, the University
must encourage and augment the quality of the interaction between faculty and
students in the residential environment and in other programmatic
contexts.
We must enhance and encourage the
interaction between faculty and students in the living environments. The
University must facilitate opportunities for engagement, provide spaces that
support such involvement, and identify incentives and support for
faculty-student activities.
Specifics include:
- The Faculty Fellows are a dedicated group of
faculty that seem to be underutilized in their current articulation. The focus
on a living-learning environment should identify the Faculty Fellows program as
a point of origination for enhanced faculty involvement in a Residential Cluster
system. This could encompass additional faculty connected programmatically to a
residential unit (identifying associate Faculty Fellows, and perhaps post-docs,
graduate and medical students), academic advising in the residence halls, and
overall participation in the intellectual and community development of the
cluster.
- The new-student Orientation program
tries to establish the values of the University, which are lifelong topics of
personal and community exploration (diversity and pluralism, public and
community service, human relations, sexuality, life decisions, etc.). These
topics would be more fully and successfully addressed through ongoing dialogue
throughout a student’s time at Brown. Discussion of these complex issues
must be more fully integrated into the core intellectual life of the University.
Therefore, faculty members affiliated with residential clusters would be in a
unique position to enhance the quality of discussion about these matters as well
as issues of concern or controversy on
campus.
- Student-faculty interaction in the
cluster, whether through formal or informal activities, may facilitate
discussion of academic choices and goals, of how to put together and make the
most of a Brown education. It is essential that the University facilitate
opportunities for engagement, provide improved spaces to support formal and
informal interactions and collaborations between faculty and students, and also
develop incentives and appropriate rewards for faculty.
- University programs, both academic and co-curricular, must support
more intentionally the developmental needs of all
students.
Specifics include:
- The offices and programs of Campus Life &
Student Services and of the Dean of the College should develop a program
statement describing how they assist students in developing the skills they need
to make the most of and participate successfully in Brown’s diverse
community.
- Our residential system (i.e.,
programming and staff resources) must support and respond more intentionally to
the developmental needs of all students in residence. Programming and resource
staff should be assigned to all residence halls and serve students of all class
years.
- The University must continue to pursue
increasing accessibility in the residence halls and University buildings.
Disability access should remain a priority in renovation and construction of the
physical plant.
NEXT STEPS
In the fall of 2000, the recommendations of this Task Force
should be presented to the University community for feedback and discussion.
The endorsement of faculty, students and staff is key to the success of the
recommendations encompassed in this report.
The Campus Life Task Force urges the University to implement a
pilot program of Residential Clusters, specifically designing two cluster areas
which could be in place for the fall of 2001. Scheduled renovations to the
Morriss-Champlin-Emery-Woolley complex provide an ideal opportunity to configure
a Residential Cluster in this part of campus. Wriston Quadrangle is the second
area that holds promise for conversion to the Residential Cluster model since
this area has already in place a number of the elements identified in the
cluster concept (i.e., a mix of class years, mix of room configurations,
assigned Community Directors and programming efforts, geographic identity).
The Task Force did not attempt to outline the costs of
developing the Residential Cluster model. It would be useful for the University
to detail the costs of the two proposed pilot locations
(Morriss-Champlin-Emery-Woolley and the Wriston Quadrangle) in time for a
broader discussion of this report in the fall. Although the proposed model is
relatively modest in that it tries to capitalize on existing resources and turn
some of the shortcomings of our current dormitory physical plant to positive
advantages, there are a number of additional costs and longer term issues that
should be factored in the project budget. Some of these issues with attendant
costs include: temporary displacement of beds during renovation or work;
permanent decrease in the number of beds to accommodate increased common areas;
short and long-term strategies to recapture the lost beds; appropriate staff
configuration to support advising and programming in the clusters and the
expanded Faculty Fellows program; etc.
DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION
There is one issue that the Task Force believes merits
significant additional exploration, that is whether Brown should proceed in the
design of a campus center. The Task Force recommends that in 2000-2001 a
separate committee seriously consider, identify and propose realistic options
for a campus center or “center campus.”
A ”campus center” suggests a more traditional
approach of a single building, or perhaps several contiguous buildings which
centralize spaces and services. “Center campus” – a concept
that the Task Force explored with the Hillier group – signifies a location
identified to become the “downtown” area of campus, a grouping of
buildings in a central area that would allow a synergistic relationship for
programming and services in the living-learning environment. For example, Faunce
House and the Third World Center already form the beginnings of a “center
campus” and moving the Sarah Doyle Women’s Center to a location near
the Third World Center would provide a third element.
The review of this matter should begin with articulation of
what is meant by a “campus center” or “center campus”;
what are the goals, function and clientele for such an effort at Brown?
Discussion must identify which services are best provided in a central location
and which are best decentralized, and this Task Force believes strongly that the
University must pursue centralized space for student organization meetings and
activity; the potential for synergistic relationships, coalition building, and
cross-group interaction would be greatly optimized by geographic proximity.
Conversely, the opportunities lost because of the current insufficiency of
centralized space for student organizations are significant. For example, one
could imagine the offices of the Undergraduate Student Council, the Graduate
Student Council and the Medical Student Council occupying contiguous
space.
The needs of non-residential students must be considered
carefully in the discussion of a campus center. While a number of services may
be provided well to members of the Residential Clusters, non-residential
students have specific needs for more centralized services. Thus, the needs of
seniors (as off-campus undergraduates), graduate students and medical students
are particularly germane to this discussion.
Finally, the Task Force expects that the University will
consider as soon as possible and in greater detail how it might provide solid
support for students’ creative and performing arts interests by
identifying, renovating, purchasing and/or reconfiguring practice, studio,
storage, gallery and performance spaces for student’ visual and performing
arts endeavors on campus.
The Task Force wants to thank the generous participation and
insights of faculty, students, and staff who provided invaluable support to the
discussion and review of complex areas of the University. The Task Force was
reassured in its deliberations of the notable strengths of this institution and
felt confident that careful and more integrated planning processes that take the
array of campus life issues in full consideration will enhance the quality of
life and the educational experience for all students. Undoubtedly, there are
many needs and aspirations – some more pressing than others – that Brown
has to address, and this Task Force hopes that its work might help the
University define and clarify the institutional agenda and its
priorities.
TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP
David Bae ’99, MD ’02
Howard Chudacoff, Professor of History
Nancy Dunbar, Dean of the College
Rodrick Echols ’03, UCS Treasurer
Wendy Edwards, Professor of Visual Art and Faculty Fellow
Karen Fischer, Associate Professor of Geological Sciences
Ihab Girgis, PhD ’00, Community Director
Jessica Gonzalez ’02
Walter Holmes Jr., Vice President of Administration
MaryLou McMillan, Executive Officer, Campus Life and Student Services
Leah Melycher, MAT ’00
Janina Montero, Vice President, Campus Life and Student Services
Evan Parness ’02, UCS Vice-President
Michelle Quiogue ’96, MD ’00
Tanya Rakpraja ’00
Robin Rose, Dean of Student Life
Brian Sheldon, Associate Professor of Engineering
Julie Strandberg, Senior Lecturer, Theatre, Speech and Dance
Judd Wishnow ’00
APPENDICES (available from the Office of Campus Life and Student Services)
- Task Force Agenda
- Statistics from the Cycles Surveys, and Surveys of Graduate Students (Office of Institutional Research)
- Proposal: An experiment in bridging academic and residential life
- The Faculty Fellows Program and the Future of Residential Life at Brown University (1997)
- Proposal: Expansion of the Rockefeller Library
- Residential Education at Comparable Institutions: A Report to the Campus Life Task Force (2000)
- UCS Campus Center Task Force Report (2000)
- Table of Contents: Background Materials for the Campus Life Task Force
- Residential Living at Brown: A Blueprint for the Future (1994)
|
