GUEST COLUMNIST: Residential Advisory Board ensures students are heard

Roshini Thayaparan Roshini ThayaparanWhen I was informed late Monday evening that an article had been written about student involvement in the residential college house plan, I was thrilled. But I learned that the comments were taken from a direct question and answer session with the Undergraduate Assembly body that I was asked to attend last Sunday evening and not through an interview. First, the statement "Residential plan makes student leaders wary" is a valid, but incomplete point. It is the student leaders on campus that (by nature of their position) have gotten the opportunity to examine and question the plan. English Professor Al Filreis, Art History David Brownlee, and Director of Academic Life in Residence Chris Dennis, among others, have visited a variety of student groups and house councils to answer questions and provide information to any confused students. For this reason, I think it's a safer assumption to say that the new residential project may have many students wary because they are the people who have not been provided a forum at which to voice their questions and concerns. This is why I agreed to meet with the UA body. From what I understood, they wanted someone to answer their questions from a student perspective. Although I was happy I could answer most of the questions asked, my comments seemed to have "concerned" the several UA reps. I must have been unclear regarding my opinions about RAB input. I can say whole heartedly that I, personally, had a great deal of input as a member of the Brownlee committee. The fact that I was "unclear about how much input RAB had in the report" is true. So here's my clear response: I was consulted regularly, and RAB, as a body, was not. One of the greatest features of RAB is that our members come from a variety of residences on and off campus. This fact alone makes us an effective body. We are able to give input on all issues from a balanced perspective of students across the university. It is for this reason I must insist that I am not RAB. I am just one voice from a strong, diverse group of student activists. Ever since the introduction of the plan, I have been bombarded with questions from the University community asking me if I and RAB support the project. But an essential distinction needs to be made again. Do I support the plan? Yes. However, there are members of RAB who have reservations and questions about the final implementation stages (and justly so). Without full consensus, our board could not issue a summary statement of approval or disapproval. Honestly, I never though it was essential that we do so. The purpose of our board is not to issue statements -- we prefer not to play the game of politics. Our purpose is to improve the life of students in the residential system. Earlier in the semester I was quoted in the DP ("New college houses will replace every dorm," DP, 10/9/97) saying that RAB appreciates the fact that the plan is just a framework for a college house system. That is how the entire board feels. We understand that the plan, as it stands, merely provides the capacity for a college house system. It is up to the students to step up and say how the individual programs in each house should be run. To address UA chairperson Noah Bilkener's opinion that "They were in on the initial planning, and then they were not in on the final planning?" is absolutely not true. The "final" planning has not even happened yet! The implementation process is a progressive one. RAB is working closely with the administration to help ease the transition of the program for fall 1998. In yesterday's article, Dennis said: "RAB should be involved in how the new house councils and house structures develop?" This is exactly what we have been doing throughout this semester. We have already provided introductory session/study breaks for residents of the high rises to offer feedback about the new plan. We will be continuing these efforts in a series of information sessions within House Council-less residences to answer more questions and provide more information to students about what this plan means for them. We will consistently work inside our individual dorms to identify other students in the community that feel as passionately about ensuring student input on residential issues as we do, and thereby establish interim house advisory groups/councils. As a complete board, we will maintain our history of passionate student advocacy, and will continue to be active in all decisions from assignments to retention to academic programming. If anyone has any doubts to our activities and involvement in the implementation details, please feel free to contact me. I would be happy to a comprehensive list of our work thus far, our timetable for the rest of the year and our vision of RAB in the future. RAB has always focused its attentions on the undergraduate experience in the residence and the residential community. Now we are simply working on residential communities in the context of a system of college houses. Our role as student advocates will not be changed. We will continue to work hard to ensure that student voices are heard throughout the residential system.