Students respond to changes to residential life at Notre Dame

first_imgThe announcement that the University will require students to live on campus for six semesters starting with the class of 2022 has been met with widespread reactions from students. At a town hall held Sept. 13, students raised concerns ranging from financial difficulties to a lack of support for students who feel alienated when it comes to residential life on campus.Senior Rohit Fonseca, who moved off campus after his junior year, raised a question at the town hall about the administration’s support for students who feel alienated in dorms on campus.“The root of the question [at the town hall] was that there are people who are left out in the housing system,” Fonseca said Sunday. “I don’t think that’s done intentionally, but that’s just the nature of [housing]. … So the root of the question was how much do we value the input of people that don’t agree or don’t appreciate some of the basic values that we have in the housing system?”Fonseca said parietals and dorm Mass are aspects of the housing system students might take issue with. While University President Fr. John Jenkins said the University makes “no apologies” about its Catholic identity, Fonseca said he believes the question needs more consideration if Notre Dame is going to require students to live in dorms on campus for three years.“There’s a variety of reasons why people feel marginalized from the halls or why people disagree with whatever the practices are in the halls,” he said. “ … I wasn’t expecting a head-on answer, but I don’t think I have the answer either, personally. I don’t pretend to know what it is, but I think it’s an important discussion to have, and I don’t think we have it enough.”While Fonseca said he enjoyed his time as a resident of Fisher Hall on campus, he knows students who have had negative experiences in their dorms. Fonseca said he believes requiring these students to remain on campus could actually end up being detrimental to hall communities.“I loved my time on campus, but I know — and I have specific people in mind — who really didn’t like their experience their experience in the halls at all,” he said. “ … A big part of community is that people want to be a part of it or choose to be a part of it. So if you’re forcing people to be a part of something they don’t want to be in, I don’t think it’s the best move.”The biggest concern Hoffmann Harding said the administration has with the changes to residential life is their potential to drive students to move off campus as seniors for the sake of taking advantage of the ability to do so. Junior Hanna Zook, who lives off campus this year, said she does see potential for backlash against the requirement.“First of all, it could drive away students who feel as though they will not fit into the dorm system,” Zook said in an email. “For example, for someone who is gender non-conforming, the idea of three years in a strictly-male or strictly-female dorm might seem like too much to handle. So we actually diminish our chances of growing diversity as everyone who commits to the University is someone who feels as though they can mesh into our dorm system. Second … the requirement may cause the opposite of what the administration intends by encouraging seniors to move off since it will be something exclusive to seniors.”Senior Sean O’Brien, who has lived on campus throughout his entire time at Notre Dame, said he doesn’t believe the requirement will have as much of an effect as most students think.“I don’t believe that this requirement will completely ruin the sense of community of [Notre Dame] like many people are saying it will,” he said in an email. “I believe that the overwhelmingly negative response is being blown out of proportion. Things will not be that different. To my knowledge, most students stay on campus six semesters. So, there will be some people that will be affected. However, as new students start coming in, this will just become the norm and no one will really know the difference.”Another major question discussed at the town hall, which Zook initially raised, is whether or not the new six-semester requirement could potentially be harmful for students who have been sexually assaulted on campus. Zook said the requirement for students who have gone through the experience to remain on campus represents a “lack of empathy” for those students.“Being assaulted or experiencing any type of trauma in a dorm has the potential to make someone never feel fully safe on campus again,” she said. “Living off campus decreases the chances of running into one’s attacker — since they are rarely expelled — and allows for a survivor to be in much more control of their environment. Requiring someone to stay on campus when they are no longer comfortable there is not only a complete lack of empathy on the part of the administration, it is a danger to the mental health and wellness of people who have already gone through awful things.”Fonseca said the potential exceptions for survivor of sexual assault need to be determined before the requirement begins to affect students.“Especially the sexual assault issue — obviously anything with sexual assault — it needs to be addressed,” he said. “If someone feels unsafe on campus and wants to move off for that reason — and I don’t think the University would block them. Erin Hoffmann Harding talked about potential waivers and things like that.”While Hoffman Harding said at the town hall this conversation is one the administration will continue to have with students, Zook said the changes should not have been announced without an official solution to the problem.“Saving a conversation for later isn’t adequate when the issue affects so many people,” Zook said.One of the most common complaints from students about the six-semester requirement is that living on campus typically costs more money than living off campus. Zook said this factor played a major role in her decision to move off campus as a junior.“Since I’m studying abroad next semester, I needed a way to somehow cut costs and start saving up,” she said. “ … I am saving literally thousands of dollars this semester, so going abroad would have been very difficult financially if I lived on campus. And although there are aspects of dorm life that I miss, I am overall much happier off campus.”One suggestion raised by students at the town hall was staggering room and board pricing based on the quality of dorm facilities. This idea, Hoffmann Harding said at the town hall, would foster an environment that “would not be helpful to the integrated communities” the University is aiming for, a sentiment Fonseca said he agrees with.“You would literally segregate the school by income — by family income — which I think is very dangerous,” he said. “So I do not think that staggering the housing prices is a good idea at all because people would know your socioeconomic background based on the hall you live in. So yeah, I think that would be a terrible idea.”Two alternatives Fonseca said could be effective are decreasing the cost of room and board somewhat for upperclassmen and updating meal plans for seniors.“I think the University should … look into ways to subsidize on-campus housing or perhaps giving a break and a slight reduction in room and board to upperclassmen to encourage them to stay on campus,” Fonseca said. “That’s, I think, a very viable option. Even a drop in $1,000 or $2,000 I think is a viable reason to stay on campus. And another thing they could do that I think we don’t do right now … a lot of people have swipes left over at the end of the week. And I think what we should do — and I think it makes perfect sense — is that all your swipes that are left over at the end of the week from your freshman through junior year, have those save up and then have that be your meal plan senior year.”Zook said she appreciated that the initial email to students announcing these changes recognized flaws in residential life, but is disappointed the administration didn’t work to repair these flaws before enacting the requirement.“I couldn’t believe that they sent an announcement of this magnitude in the middle of the night,” she said. “While reading the email for the first time, I was satisfied that they were accurately pointing out some of the problems of dorm life. But the decision to create a new requirement rather than working to fix the problems really surprised me.”While O’Brien said he does not appreciate the fact that students will no longer be able to decide whether or not they stay on campus for six semesters, he can see the changes to residential life having some positive effects in the long run.“I think the biggest drawback is that the element of choice has been removed,” he said. “I think a positive of this rule will be an increased focus on residential life, and I believe that this will lead to positive changes.”The lack of student say in the matter, Zook said, remains a point of contention with many members of the student body.“I think a big part of it is that we feel as though our opinions were not at all taken into consideration,” she said. “Conducting focus groups did not seem to reflect the views of the current student body in general. Also, simply put, as young adults we don’t [need] more restrictions. Since Notre Dame already has such a high rate of upperclassmen living on campus, imposing a new requirement just didn’t seem necessary to many including myself. … There can be benefits, but they are reliant on some big ‘ifs.’”Tags: dorm life, Housing, New Housing Requirement, residential life, sexual assault, six-semester requirementlast_img read more

Rose makes banking return at ABN Amro

first_imgWould you like to read more?Register for free to finish this article.Sign up now for the following benefits:Four FREE articles of your choice per monthBreaking news, comment and analysis from industry experts as it happensChoose from our portfolio of email newsletters To access this article REGISTER NOWWould you like print copies, app and digital replica access too? SUBSCRIBE for as little as £5 per week.last_img

Aubameyang’s bicycle kick against Olympiacos wins Arsenal award

first_img Loading… Aubameyang drew the Gunners level in style at the Emirates Stadium on February 27 even though they were dumped out of the competition after a 2-1 defeat.Advertisement Promoted Content11 Most Immersive Game To Play On Your Table TopCan Playing Too Many Video Games Hurt Your Body?10 Risky Jobs Some Women DoTop 10 Enemies Turned Friends in TV5 Of The World’s Most Unique Theme Parks20 Celebs With Surprising Hidden Talents And SkillsWhich Country Is The Most Romantic In The World?Best & Worst Celebrity Endorsed Games Ever Made14 Hilarious Comics Made By Women You Need To Follow Right NowThe 90s Was A Fantastic Decade For Fans Of Action Movies8 Superfoods For Growing Hair Back And Stimulating Its GrowthThis Guy Photoshopped Himself Into Celeb Pics And It’s Hysterical Read Also:Aubameyang battles Calvert-Lewin, Fernandes for Premier League award The 30-year-old accrued 22 percent of the total votes while Mesut Ozil’s strike after a fine team movement against Newcastle United came second. FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmail分享 Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang’s stunning bicycle kick against Olympiacos in the Uefa Europa League has been named Arsenal’s Goal of the Month for February.last_img read more

Allardyce sticking to his guns

first_img Allardyce is wary of just how dangerous Roberto Martinez’s compact side can be. “We have to be aware and stop the service they give to the forwards, then when you have possession you have to make sure you use it correctly and exploit the spaces they do leave,” he said. “A key part for us will be trying to make sure we limit Everton’s attacks by stopping those players like Seamus Coleman and Leighton Baines, if he is fit, because they are very good at going forward with the ball.” The 6ft 3in forward offers a different focal point for the Hammers, but Allardyce insists that in itself will not necessarily mean switching to a more direct style. “We play slightly differently, in that we play more into Andy’s feet than we do into (Enner) Valencia or Sakho,” said the West Ham manager. “Valencia and Sakho are so pacy that we are a massive threat in behind the opposition when the midfield players like (Mark) Noble, (Alex) Song or (Stewart) Downing start sliding balls down the side of defenders, that has been a really big threat for us and on the back of that we have scored goals. “Whereas Andy is not such a big a threat in that area, he is a much bigger threat in terms of setting up attacks to get into the final third by playing into his feet or chest and not playing into his head. “No way do I tell a player to just knock it up to Andy’s head. I don’t want them to knock it up to Andy’s head, I want them to be talented enough to knock it into Andy’s feet or chest. “We want it on Andy’s head when it is getting crossed into the box because that is where he is at his best and where he can score a lot of goals, as Sakho has proved this season. “I think we have scored more headed goals than anybody else, even without Andy Carroll.” Everton have started to slowly build some momentum following an indifferent start to the campaign, and are unbeaten in six though all competitions since losing at Manchester United on October 5. Diafra Sakho, who had netted six goals to help West Ham climb to fourth in the Barclays Premier League, is a major doubt for Saturday’s trip to Merseyside after suffering a back problem while away on international duty with Senegal. Carroll looked lively when coming on as a late substitute in the goalless draw against Aston Villa, his first appearance since recovering from pre-season ankle surgery, and almost scored a winner with a late header. Sam Allardyce will tell his West Ham team to adapt but not abandon their dynamic attacking style should Andy Carroll once again lead the front line at Everton. Press Associationlast_img read more

AUDIO: Sunshine Stars Won’t Be Relegated – Duke Udi

first_imgRelatedAUDIO: Duke Udi Reflects On Outgone NPFL SeasonSeptember 22, 2017In “Nigeria”AUDIO: Away Win At Rivers United Thrills Duke UdiJuly 20, 2017In “Nigeria”‘Pay Me My Money’ – Duke Udi Fires Back At Ondo State GovernmentMarch 14, 2018In “Nigeria” Following recent impressive results, Sunshine Stars coach Duke Udi says he is confident the ‘Owena Waves’ will not suffer relegation from the Nigeria Professional Football League (NPFL) this season.The Akure-based team who currently play home games in Ijebu-Ode, have won 4 of their last 5 NPFL matches, including two on the road against ABS FC and Rivers United.The team which was in the dreaded relegation zone when Udi took over the reins few weeks ago, are now placed 11th on the table with 42 points after 31 matches, just three points above the drop zone.Udi, a former player at Enyimba, says his love for challenges motivated him to accept the job in the first place.“Like I used to say, now we have about 21 points to play for. We will keep gathering our points,” the former Osun United coach said. “I don’t look at the relegation battle.“I took this job because I love challenges – they make me to be stronger. When I took this job, people were complaining: ‘Why will you take this kind of job?’“But I believe Sunshine (Stars) cannot be relegated. We still have about 21 points to fight for. We will keep fighting; we are a fighting team,” Udi said.Sunshine Stars will be guests of Wikki Tourists in Bauchi in a Match Day 32 tie on Sunday.Audio Player Up/Down Arrow keys to increase or decrease volume.last_img read more