Despite all the warnings from and panic among my peers, I was purely optimistic entering the housing lottery for the first time. My late slot on the second day did not diminish my hopes for Hope College, and I was certain a little of Littlefield Hall would remain open. I spent the preceding Sunday standing outside of potential dorms until someone swiped me in. I shamelessly knocked on doors to sneak a peek of individual rooms. I criticized minute details as if I had any real choice in the matter.
But my dreams were shattered quite quickly. I skillfully played the part of the flustered group leader, clicking the wrong links and significantly exceeding my two given minutes. After the chaos settled, I realized that despite hours of ranking priorities and dissecting floor plans, I had made a random decision and had never heard of the dorm I chose.
Though the odds were certainly not in my favor this time around, I take comfort in the fact that at least the odds were fair. At peer schools, this is not always the case.
If housing options were in any way distinguished by a dollar amount, I would be appalled at the system in a much different way. Pricing housing according to location, facilities or room size would give students with more resources an enormous advantage over students from low-income backgrounds. Even though economic difference is difficult to escape in reality, college should ideally be a place of equal opportunity. Most importantly, college is about education, which should be inclusive regardless of socioeconomic status.
Diversity, a much-discussed topic this year, is necessary in an educational environment. Different pricing for different dorms, as is enforced by some schools, groups together students who can afford that housing, dividing the student body among clear class lines. Some of the most important learning experiences at college occur during time spent with one’s peers, and that would be stunted if one were surrounded only by students from similar socioeconomic backgrounds.
This upcoming year, Penn is reducing its six different rates of housing to just two, mirroring Brown’s system of a regular fee versus a suite fee, which will soon be phased out. Though that is a significant step, Penn should follow Brown’s efforts to eliminate suite fees entirely and make its housing accessible to all students. So far at Brown, the higher rates of rooms in Vartan Gregorian Quad have been lowered, and I am hopeful that the University will hear students’ cries of classism and drop the other suite fees as well.
Classism is unavoidable, but our university and other institutions should not enforce policies that separate students by socioeconomic status. It is the University’s responsibility to provide equal housing opportunities for all students who remain on campus. For those who move off campus, these decisions occur outside of University control, beyond the egalitarian influence of the Office of Residential Life.
I am proud to go to an institution that values this type of inclusion. When upperclassmen share stories about the old housing assignment process in Sayles Hall, it sounds even more stress-inducing than our online version. But there is a tradition and sentimentality reflected in those stories, and it is thankfully grounded in a non-hierarchical system.
During my housing lottery experience, I was grateful that the only issues of debate were outdated bathrooms versus Greek life housing and not the price tag of various buildings. That type of debate could lead to more serious tensions or concerns. The housing lottery is a true Brown experience. It is a campus-tour talking point. I can look back on it fondly because of the level playing field on which the lottery is founded.
Grace Johnson ’19 can be reached at grace_johnson@brown.edu. Please send responses to this opinion to letters@browndailyherald.com and other op-eds to opinions@browndailyherald.com.
