Location: Bowdoin / Residential Life / Building Community at Bowdoin College

Residential Life

Building Community at Bowdoin College

An Interim Report of The Commission on Residential Life to The Board of Trustees of Bowdoin College

February 22, 1997

The Offer of the College

To be at home
in all lands and all ages;
to count Nature
a familiar acquaintance,
and Art an intimate friend;
to carry the keys of the
world's library in your pocket,
and feel its resources behind you
in whatever task you undertake;
to make hosts of friends
who are to be leaders in all walks of life;
to lose yourself in generous enthusiasms
and cooperate with others for common ends -
this is the offer of the college
for the best four years of your life.

Adapted from the original "Offer of the College" published in 1906 as the foreword to The College Man and the College Woman by William DeWitt Hyde, Seventh President of Bowdoin (1885-1917)

Part I. The Commission's Task
Part II. An Assessment of Residential Life at Bowdoin
Part III. Moving Forward: Recommendations for Enhancing the Learning Community at Bowdoin
Part IV. Conclusion
Summary of Recommendations

Part I: The Commission's Task

The Commission on Residential Life was appointed by the Board of Trustees in July 1996 and charged with accomplishing four central tasks:

Develop a philosophy for residential life which includes as principal objectives the enhancement of student learning and growth and fostering a sense of community. This philosophy of residential life will emphasize the relationship between residence and dining, social life, and, importantly, the future role of fraternities.
Assess all existing facilities and practices regarding residential life in light of this philosophy.
Develop a long-range strategy for the design of new housing and dining facilities and the redesign of old facilities to be consistent with this philosophy. Recommend steps to be taken in the short term to improve social spaces on campus.
Reevaluate the effectiveness of residential life staffing and policies, including the alcohol policy, to reflect this philosophy.

In this interim report, the Commission focuses mainly on the first two of these charges. We set out a proposed "philosophy of residential life" and describe a new conception of residential life for the College consistent with that philosophy and based on a model of broad House membership for all students reminiscent of an earlier Bowdoin. The report also makes recommendations about the future of fraternities at the College, and sets out in broad brush strokes the construction and renovation needs for implementation of this model. Since all of the other tasks of the Commission depend heavily on acceptance of these recommendations, we bring them to the Board for review in this interim Report. If the Board endorses them in principle the Commission can move forward. If it does not, the Commission must return to these issues before proceeding further.

The members of the Commission began their work with no presuppositions and committed to finding a plan for residential life that would improve the College and reinforce its educational mission. To accomplish its charge, the Commission has undertaken to gather information and hear many viewpoints. Commission members have heard from scores of alumni and parents by letter and e-mail, held forums with alumni and parents in Boston, New York and Portland, met with students in groups and in open forums, met with faculty and staff, made use of institutional research, cooperated with the Student Executive Board in a survey of all students, inspected nearly all residential facilities on campus, visited other campuses, and reviewed reports on residential life from varied colleges and universities. In making its assessment and recommendations the Commission has available an abundance of information, evidence, and opinion.

Our investigation reinforces a sense of urgency in making significant changes in the organization of and resources for residential life at Bowdoin and highlights problems that were identified in last year's Reaccreditation report. That report concluded that the structures of residential life at Bowdoin have developed without a clear, guiding philosophy and without adequate resources. The Commission reaffirms that conclusion.

For well over a century, the College delegated much of its responsibility for residential and social life to fraternities. Increasingly over the last thirty years, however, as the number and membership of fraternities has declined, fraternities have not had the resources or capacity to meet that responsibility for all Bowdoin students.

It is now time for the College to take on the responsibility it has too long deferred. A failure to do so would threaten to erode the quality of the educational experience at Bowdoin, and, as visits to other campuses make clear, would put us at a growing competitive disadvantage in attracting talented students to Bowdoin. By taking the residential experience of all of its students seriously and building on Bowdoin's many strengths, the College can meet the challenge. By doing so, the College can help bring students back to the core of the campus and reinvigorate campus life.

This report proposes a plan to accomplish that goal and makes clear the shape of the final report which will be submitted in May to the Board of Trustees. We hope that the Board will at this point, however, support in principle the major directions and recommendations of this interim report to provide guidance to the Commission as it completes its task and to the College community which will be affected by our recommendations.

Part II: An Assessment of Residential Life at Bowdoin

During the last thirty years Bowdoin has changed profoundly. The College has become co-educational, more diverse, less regional, and larger. From an all male, substantially white, largely New England College of 950 students in 1969, Bowdoin has become a College of 1,625 students with roughly equal percentages of men and women and a broader range of geographic and ethnic diversity.

In this period of dramatic growth and change, the College centered much of its attention and resources on insuring academic excellence and, in the later years, balancing the budget. In its appropriate preoccupation with these issues, however, the College failed to attend to the residential experience of its students and the radically different needs and circumstances of residential life in the changed Bowdoin of the 1990s. Periodic attention to issues of residential life has surfaced in reports of previous Commissions and Committees - particularly the Study Committee on Underclass Campus Environments of 1969, the Commission on Student Life of 1983, the Committee to Review Fraternities in 1988, and Strengthening the Fabric: Prospectus on Campus Life at Bowdoin in 1992. There are striking continuities in the observations, conclusions, and even recommendations of these reports. However, the College has tended to invest more heavily in studying the problems of residential life than in solving them. In recent years we have seen a renewed interest in residential life that has brought the Smith Union, a remodeled Moulton Union, and Howard and Stowe residence halls to the campus. The appointment of a Director of Residential Life in 1995 also promised and provided new administrative attention to these issues. But the College still has far to go, as an examination of its current strengths and weaknesses makes clear.

A. The Strengths and Weaknesses of Residential Life at Bowdoin

STRENGTHS OF RESIDENTIAL LIFE

Diversity and choice of housing: Bowdoin offers an unusually wide array of housing choices for students and currently permits any student who wishes to do so to live off campus after the first year. Many students enjoy the independence implied by apartment living or living off campus. Fraternities provide a housing option to about 10% of students.

Excellence of College dining: By all reports, students appreciate the excellent variety and quality of food offered by the College Dining Service, even if the facilities are sometimes crowded and noisy.

Residential Life staff and leadership: Bowdoin has long had a strong proctor and resident advisor program which draws talented and dedicated students to work for the College. Strong professional leadership is now in place and has already developed substantially the residential life programming and the resulting sense of community within first-year dorms. The prospect of continuity in the Dean's Office promises consistency in leadership and planning in the area of student life that the College has not had in recent years.

Smith Union: Smith Union provides a large and heavily used central location for students to gather, to meet, and to eat. It has been used successfully on many occasions for large social events that have drawn many students, as well as faculty and staff. It has potential for even greater use for events of varied sizes.

Geographic location: Bowdoin's location near the beautiful coast of Maine provides an interesting and attractive feature of its students' residential experience. The benefits range from the opportunity to live in an oceanfront cottage in Harpswell or Orrs Island during the senior year to enjoying myriad recreational opportunities and appreciating the wonderful "downeast" spirit and character of the region.

WEAKNESSES AND CHALLENGES OF RESIDENTIAL LIFE

Separation of social and academic life: The separation of academic and campus life is difficult to document but, nonetheless, real. Students distinguish "academics" from the rest of their experience at Bowdoin and describe the College as a place where students "work hard and play hard." Some students report disappointment that lively intellectual engagement diminishes after the first year. Faculty express concern that students seem unaware of world events or even of campus events. Residential arrangements encourage this separation in a variety of ways. College housing is too often physically and psychologically distant from the cultural and intellectual life of the College. The lack of space and student organization in residence halls means that there are rarely organized events that bring the arts or politics, debate or discussion into residential units. Faculty have had little connection to residence halls and residential life, and there is no organizational system in place, at present, for promoting such links. Thus, the current structure of residential life reinforces the separation of "academics" and "life."

Weak sense of community: Many students choose Bowdoin because of its small size and the promise that the College offers to provide a learning community. Yet, by the time they are seniors, only 29% of students say that they are satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the sense of community on campus. By contrast, levels of satisfaction with the eight other items that seniors were asked to rate in an exit survey - including library, contact with faculty, class size, and laboratory facilities - are all considerably higher. The problem of fragmentation is not new. The Thorne Commission report of 1983 opened its section on "General Concerns" with the observation that "a major concern among students is the fragmentation of the student body." If anything, this perception appears to be even more pronounced in 1997 than it was in 1983.

In fact, students often emphasized the fragmentation of campus life in our discussions with them. Many students experience the campus as sets of small groups of people within which there are bonds of shared interest or friendship but with little connection across the boundaries of these small groups. Such small groups are natural and healthy, but the College's residential and dining arrangements tend to reinforce fragmentation rather than to provide a meeting place where students of varied interests and backgrounds find common space and common ground for activity and identity.

There are many pressures toward fragmentation and away from a sense of College community. Students move from one residence to the next over four years at Bowdoin with little continuity in relationships with diverse groups of students. Thirty-nine percent of college housing for upperclass students is in apartments which tend to discourage shared activity and identity. Fraternity rush in the second semester of the first year fractures emerging group bonds and identities among first-year students. Sophomores are dispersed from the center of the campus into apartments and private housing, fraternities and theme houses. The migration from the core of the campus continues as juniors study away (44% in the Class of '98) and seniors live in large numbers off campus (41% in the Class of '97). There are few College traditions or shared activities or experiences that help connect students with each other, to their residences and to the College. For example, only 19% of students surveyed by the Student Executive Board agreed that they felt "connected to Bowdoin traditions." Dining has its strongest connection to residence in fraternities, but that link is necessarily attenuated in central College dining halls. All of these factors reinforce fragmentation.

In addition, Commission members heard repeatedly in small group meetings of the sense of exclusion, separation, and even intimidation experienced by many students of color, gay and lesbian students, and some women students. There is also evidence that students from low income families are more likely than other students to find Bowdoin a difficult place in which to feel welcome and at home.

The sophomore problem: The sophomore year proves to be a particularly traumatic one at Bowdoin, although the difficulties in fact begin in February of the first year. Fraternity rush turns the attention of about one-third of first-year students from their room-, dorm-, and classmates to their fraternity mates. This begins a process of fragmentation that continues as room draw occurs in the Spring and rising sophomores find that they will not be guaranteed housing on campus. As a result, many sophomores in past years have had to move to outlying apartments or off campus where they find themselves isolated from students in their class. Thus, just as first-year students are beginning to feel themselves a part of the College and to develop strong bonds with diverse students in their dormitories, they are divided by fraternity rush and dispersed because of the lack of College dormitory housing. Comparable colleges generally guarantee housing for sophomores and often require them to live on campus.

Dispersion of students: One of the reasons for a sense of fragmentation on campus is the nature and location of residence and dining facilities. Housing offered by the College includes a set of core dormitory buildings which accommodate only about 50% of the student body (the six "brick dorms," Coles Tower, Stowe and Howard Halls). The College also owns several houses near campus (for example, Wellness, Baxter, Smith, and Boody Street) and four apartment complexes (Brunswick, Harpswell, Pine Street, and Mayflower) which are at a distance from the central campus. The College provides housing near the center of campus (dorms and houses) for only 59% of its students at present. It is evident that Bowdoin relies too heavily on apartment housing away from the center of campus and too little on centrally located dormitory housing. Dining takes place in two central College dining halls and seven fraternity dining halls as well as in the many College-owned and private apartments where students reside.

Insufficient residential and dining capacity: The College built no new dormitory space between 1964 and 1996 even though it had grown from an enrollment of 950 to 1550 and had become coeducational in the interim. With the opening of Stowe and Howard Halls in 1996, dormitory space was expanded by only 100 beds. The College has out of expediency made do by building or acquiring several apartment complexes and houses in the area. In sum, the College can now house only about 76% of its students - unlike most peer institutions where 95% or more of students live in College facilities. The housing shortage, as noted before, exacerbates the problem for sophomores because they have the last choice in the lottery.

Not only is there insufficient College-owned housing, but existing housing may be poorly configured. In visits to other campuses, it became clear that many of our competitor colleges are increasing the proportion of single rooms in their housing stock to as high as 70%, which has the effect of drawing upperclass students to the center of campus.

Similarly, dining capacity falls short of the expanded number of students, as was made clear as early as the Thorne Commission report of 1983. Dining space was expanded in 1996 by 85 seats through remodeling of Moulton Union, the first expansion of capacity since the building of Wentworth Hall in 1964. The College Dining Service has made do by extending dining hours, using Daggett Lounge and the Mitchell rooms for seating, providing bag lunches to an average of 200 students a day, and causing students to wait longer in line. In sum, the College, not including fraternities, can feed only 71% of its students at maximum capacity using all dining spaces, including rooms ordinarily used for meetings.

Inadequate social and study space in residence halls: The brick dorms, Coles Tower, and the college apartments have few common spaces where students can go to relax in groups, watch television, read newspapers, or play games. This makes it difficult and unlikely for groups of students to gather and meet informally in the residence halls. At most comparable colleges, large and comfortable student lounges are available in residence halls. Kitchen facilities for students to prepare snacks are extremely popular on other campuses as a magnet for small groups of students. At Bowdoin such facilities are almost nonexistent. Many colleges provide quiet study spaces, often computer-equipped, in dormitories to relieve pressure for students who find they cannot study in their rooms. Such study spaces do not exist in most Bowdoin dormitories.

Imbalance in resources for social life: Students at Bowdoin express the desire to design and control their own social lives and many see fraternities as a vehicle for that control. In practice, however, the changing fraternity system combined with the College's long-standing inattention and failure to provide suitable facilities and resources have together limited opportunities for broad student leadership in designing social activities. The fraternities own and therefore control most of the best informal social spaces on campus. Dormitory groups and student organizations do not have comparable facilities available and find it difficult to obtain appropriate sites for social events. Further, fraternities collect dues which may be spent for a variety of purposes, including the purchase of alcohol. In contrast, other student organizations have, at best, limited budgets allocated from the Student Activities Fee collected by the College. These funds are not distributed to residential groups, and funds distributed by the College may not be used for the purchase of alcohol. As a result, social events tend to be divided between "fraternity parties" (alcoholic) and "college-sponsored events" (non-alcoholic). Only 13% of students in the Student Executive Board survey agreed that "the college sponsors enough diverse social events for students."

Alcohol use and challenges of alcohol policy: A significant proportion of students identify relaxation, fun, and sociability with the availability of alcohol, although more do not. For example, 35% agreed in the Student Executive Board survey that "the presence of alcohol determines that a social event will be fun" while 47% disagreed. Seventy percent of students responding to the College's alcohol and drug survey in 1995 perceived drinking to be a problem on campus. Because the state sets the drinking age at 21, College-sponsored events cannot serve alcohol. Socializing based on alcohol use may thus get driven into dorm or apartment rooms, to private residences off campus, and into fraternity parties.

B. The Role of Fraternities in Bowdoin's Social and Residential Life

THE BENEFITS OF FRATERNITIES AND A FRATERNITY SYSTEM

Many Bowdoin fraternity members, both students and graduates, consider their fraternity experiences to have been a meaningful part of their four years at Bowdoin. At the student and alumni forums held by the Residential Life Commission, there were eloquent testimonials to the value of fraternities in members' lives and considerable support for maintaining the fraternity system as an option for Bowdoin students. The same is true of much of the correspondence sent to the Commission. The allegiance many Bowdoin alumni and current students feel for their houses is one of the best attributes of a strong fraternity system.

The Commission recognizes what fraternities, at their best, can mean for students at Bowdoin. One student described her fraternity as "a place where, if I were not there, I would be missed." Fraternities can give their members a strong sense of belonging, a powerful bond with other students, with alumni, and with Bowdoin itself. They can offer opportunities for cross-class relationships, for leadership and self-governance, for learning and participating in the traditions of the College, and for responsible social activity. At their best, fraternities can expand a student's social horizon by affiliation with a larger number of diverse individuals than the student would likely have come to know without such a structure.

Sense of Belonging: Membership in a fraternity provides a connection with a relatively small and stable group that can serve as a supportive community for members. Rush, dining, and house meetings reinforce relationships and help build a sense of identity for members.

Close and lasting friendships: Many current students and alumni report that their closest and most lasting friendships are and were made in fraternities. The intensity of the fraternity bond and its continuity help to insure that members form strong friendships with one another.

Cross-class relationships: The fact that fraternity membership crosses four Bowdoin classes insures that those who pledge a fraternity will get to know students from different classes.

Connections with alumni: Fraternities have provided one of the few structures on campus where undergraduates can get to meet and work with alumni. These relationships have been rewarding both for the undergraduates and for the alumni.

Links with traditions of the college: Fraternities at Bowdoin have been historically the point at which College traditions, lore, and songs are passed on to new students. The cross-class and alumni connections make that possible, but so does the organization of the fraternity itself. The Commission has heard repeatedly that students who are not in fraternities feel particularly disconnected from the traditions of the College and have no chance to learn about its past.

Venues for community service: Fraternity members are rightfully proud of the community service traditions that some have developed. Although hundreds of Bowdoin students who are members and nonmembers of fraternities volunteer in the local community, only fraternities are organized by residential affiliation to do so.

Opportunities for leadership: Fraternities are formally organized to manage their houses, kitchens, and budgets. These responsibilities provide important leadership and management opportunities for students.

Control over "home-like" space and social space: Fraternities provide "homes away from home" for students and social spaces over which they have control. Very few other students live in comparable settings or have regular access to them.

WEAKNESSES OF FRATERNITIES AND OF THE FRATERNITY SYSTEM AT BOWDOIN

The considerable benefits of fraternity life at its ideal must be balanced against significant problems in practice. Many of these problems both stem from and result in limited financial and human resources. Despite the efforts of small groups of alumni, most fraternities have been unable to sustain broad-based alumni involvement and financial support. With notable exceptions, Bowdoin's fraternities have been increasingly unable to attract the critical mass of members needed to sustain themselves as healthy institutions. The proportion of the student body joining fraternities declined fairly steadily after the late 1960s. Almost half of the fraternities closed. The inability of the remaining fraternities to attract more than 30% of the student body reflects, in part, the fact that most students in the 1990s do not find fraternities attractive organizations to join. By their label and continuing local identification as "fraternities," these organizations at Bowdoin are notably less attractive to women than to men. Difficulties in recruiting students diminish resources and make fraternities even less inviting. Junior and senior members are generally reluctant to live in the houses, causing fraternities to rely heavily on sophomores to fill rooms and pay bills.

These and other problems are not new. Indeed, as early as 1969 the Pierce Report contrasted the realities of fraternity life then with its aspirations, and perhaps, its past. The report quoted Professor Stanley Perkins Chase writing in 1944 about the benefits of fraternity life:

To many graduates, [fraternity] membership has meant a valuable training in the care of material property and in the maintenance of good relations with the town and with other groups, cooperation with the Dean and the faculty advisor in promoting scholarship and manly conduct among the younger brothers, and comradely association with alumni in the management of chapter affairs.

The Pierce report then went on to observe: "This statement, with which few would have expressed disagreement at the time it was written, now seems like romantic nostalgia." The later reports of the Thorne Commission of 1983 and the Henry report of 1988 continued to be concerned with the contrast between the ideals of fraternities and the reality of their conditions and practices. In our report we must be as frank in acknowledging the problems of fraternities and the fraternity system as in outlining their strengths and aspirations.

Benefits of fraternity system unavailable to 70% of students at Bowdoin: One of the most significant limitations of the fraternity system at Bowdoin is that it cannot deliver its advantages to the 70% of undergraduates who are not members. Most of these nonmembers find close friends, but are without a structure for providing many other benefits of fraternity membership: cross-class friendships, social groupings smaller than the class but larger than cliques, group self-governance and organization, responsibility for the maintenance of residences, knowledge of the traditions of the College, a sense of belonging, and access to social space.

Public perception and College reputation: The presence of fraternities at Bowdoin hinders recruitment of top high school students. A recent survey by George Dehne & Associates of Bowdoin's targeted top prospects for the class of 2001 revealed that 73% expressed a preference for colleges without fraternities while 27% preferred colleges with fraternities. Clearly other factors, ranging from location to financial aid awards, affect a student's decision to apply to or attend the College. But, the Dehne survey confirms that the existence of a fraternity system at Bowdoin is, on balance, a negative factor in the eyes of Bowdoin's top prospects.

Inadequate financial support and poor physical condition of facilities: Although the Commission has not done formal audits of the physical condition of the fraternity houses, members have toured all of the buildings and gathered information from Facilities Management which continues to monitor carefully the condition of fraternity buildings. The Commission's conclusion is that - with rare exceptions - the houses are in varying states of disrepair. Coincident with the Commission's tour of the facilities last summer were OSHA inspections of several fraternities, leading to the temporary closing of kitchens at two of them. The state of disrepair is so significant in several of the houses that the College has stopped using them for alumni reunions. The poor physical condition of most of Bowdoin's fraternities reflects both the abusive treatment of the houses by residents and visitors, and their weak financial condition. Strong vocal support by alumni for fraternities has not been accompanied by sufficient financial support or personal involvement to maintain them at acceptable levels.

Disconnection from the academic mission of the College: With one or two exceptions, fraternities at Bowdoin are not regarded as centers of intellectual life on campus or even places of serious academic engagement. Faculty involvement in fraternities is low to nonexistent, in large part because neither students nor faculty see a meaningful connection. The generalized perceptions of fraternities at Bowdoin appear to be borne out by statistical evidence, although individual organizations differ widely. Those students who elect not to join fraternities do better on average academically at Bowdoin than those who are members. The average grades of nonmembers last year were significantly higher than for fraternity members. The pledging process has a quantifiably adverse impact on the academic work of new fraternity members. For non-fraternity members in the class of 1999, grade point averages increased on average from the fall to the spring semester, but for first-year pledges in the Class of 1999, the average grade point average fell.

Unrepresentativeness: The degree to which fraternities mirror the campus community has declined as the proportion of students joining them has diminished and as the College itself has grown substantially more diverse. When 95% or more of the students belonged to fraternities, they represented well, in aggregate, the character of the entire student body. This is no longer true. Fraternities remain predominately male. Only 23% of women on campus belong to fraternities compared to 36% of men. Although 32% of white students join fraternities, only 15% of Asian-Americans and 16% of African-Americans do so. Twenty-seven percent of Hispanic students, 29% of Native American students, and 20% of international students join fraternities. Further, students on financial aid are one-quarter less likely to join fraternities than are students not on aid - 32% of no-aid students join compared to 24% of students on aid. In addition, the average calculated need of fraternity members with financial aid is about $3,000 lower than that for non-members on aid. Taken together these statistics draw a picture of a campus in which fraternities reinforce differences along lines of gender, race, and socioeconomic status.

Dominance of social life and burden of providing it: A particular problem at Bowdoin noted earlier is the reliance on fraternities to define "social life" on the campus. Since fraternities own and have control over most of the informal social space on campus and have sizeable budgets derived from dues, fraternities bear the major burden of providing a student-organized social life not only for their members but for the rest of Bowdoin students. This creates a financial burden on fraternities and exposes them to potential liability and blame for the conduct of nonmembers attending social events. In addition, it means that fraternities - involving less than 30% of students - have had responsibility for most social life on campus.

Divisiveness: In the Student Executive Board survey, 44% of students agreed that "Fraternities have a divisive impact on Bowdoin students," while 38% disagreed. The perception of divisiveness was especially strong among students who are not members of fraternities - 54% agreed and 25% disagreed. At the same time, it is important to note that general student opinion about fraternities is mixed. When given the choice of three options in the Student Executive Board survey, 49% of students preferred that "Bowdoin fraternities should continue to exist as they currently are," while 33% indicated that they "should continue to exist but with substantial changes." Eighteen percent selected the final option - abolition of fraternities. One reading of this result is that 82% of students support fraternities. Another reading suggests that 51% of students believe there needs to be substantial change in the fraternity system.

Weak upperclass leadership: Faced with economic pressures and with physical facilities in disrepair, fraternities rely heavily on sophomores to pay board and room bills that enable them to survive economically. Few juniors and seniors choose to live in the houses. About 75% of fraternity residents are sophomores. Only five seniors lived in fraternities in the fall of 1996. Although juniors and seniors play an important role in the leadership of the organizations, they are not the regular presence in the houses that they once were.

Uncertain legal relationship to the College: The presence of fraternities at Bowdoin as independent, self-perpetuating entities raises significant and complex legal issues. As distinct legal entities, fraternities are responsible for compliance with federal, state, and municipal laws but, as members of the College community, they must also comply with College policy. At the same time, the College has only indirect and arms-length supervisory responsibility over the operation of fraternities. One consequence is that the College's major role is to intervene when something goes wrong at a fraternity, yet the College has almost no power to shape the direction, activities, or life in the fraternities.

Another result is that the College may have potential exposure to claims of legal liability for injuries, damage, and other violations of law occurring at fraternities, while at the same time it has limited authority to govern and regulate fraternity life. This problem will likely become exacerbated with the passage of time, expanding beyond areas of tort law into developing areas of employment, sexual harassment, OSHA compliance, and a host of other conceivable areas of legal tension. This ambiguous and arms-length relationship with the College may account in part for the generally perceived failure by both the College and fraternities to implement fully the recommendations of the 1988 report of the Committee to Review Fraternities.

Initiation and hazing: Faculty and coaches have expressed concerns that pledging, hazing, and initiation activities in some fraternities demand such time and energy that affected students perform less well in the classroom and in athletics during that period. The evidence of declining grades during initiation supports these observations. In addition, we have learned that rumors of degrading hazing rituals in some fraternities persist at Bowdoin. Fraternity members insist that they comply with state law and College policy which forbid hazing. Whether, in fact, any of Bowdoin's fraternities engage in hazing is not certain, but it is clear that there remains a perception among a substantial number of Bowdoin students, particularly women, that hazing does take place. Whether or not true, this perception affects the reputation of fraternities and limits their attractiveness to many students.

Cooperation with College officials: For at least 125 years at Bowdoin, there has been concern with the problem of "secret societies" on campus, and these concerns remain today. When a crisis occurs, the College's efforts to investigate and to take appropriate action can be stymied by the reluctance of fraternity members to cooperate fully with the process. Loyalty to the fraternity can supersede responsibility to the College community. A wall of protective silence can of course occur outside the fraternity context, but the fraternity system's induction process may have the unintended consequence of fostering primary allegiance to the fraternity group. The College is placed in an untenable position, unable to investigate properly potential violations of its own policies occurring on its campus and involving its students. At the same time, students often find themselves in a difficult situation, torn between loyalty to the fraternity and to the College.

C. The College's Role in Residential Life

In the context of this description of strengths and weaknesses of residential life and of fraternities and the fraternity system, the Commission has reflected on the appropriate role of the College in organizing the residential life of its students. Others have been concerned about the same question. In letters and meetings, the Commission has been urged repeatedly not to engage in "social engineering." The Commission takes those challenges seriously and recognizes both the limits of the College's capacity to "design" residential life and its responsibilities for insuring that structures are in place for students to organize their own residential lives. The Commission is also keenly aware of the need to balance the personal desires of individuals with the attainment of the College's institutional goals.

Behind these questions and challenges may be an assumption that the current state of affairs at Bowdoin is "natural" and efforts to alter it to achieve the College's goals would exceed the College's purview. A brief review of some of the College's history helps to provide perspective on that assumption. First, it makes clear that the current state of affairs at Bowdoin is the result of clear choices made over many years. The College has consistently elected to cede responsibility for residential life to the fraternities. Second, that history makes clear that for over 150 years College officials have, in fact, attempted to "engineer" social life on campus by trying to shape fraternities as much as possible to meet the goals of the College.1

In his 1927 Report, President Sills acknowledged that: "Bowdoin is frankly a fraternity college. We have allowed the fraternities to accumulate property and have made use of them in many ways to provide facilities which the College would otherwise have been obliged to furnish." Having given up much of the College responsibility for social life, the College's leaders remained attentive to the resulting problems, trying to mend them as best they could. According to President Hyde, "Fraternities are like apple trees. Left to themselves, their fruit is small, sour, worm-eaten. Cultivated, sprayed, grafted, and pruned, their fruit is large, sweet, and sound." Bowdoin Presidents and Deans over the years repeatedly tried to cultivate fraternities. For example, President Hyde attempted to overcome a persistent concern at Bowdoin that fraternities discouraged academic achievement by introducing the Friars' Cup in 1911 to be awarded to the fraternity with the highest grade point average.

Another common concern dating back to President Hyde's administration was the inequality of social opportunity between fraternity and nonfraternity students. In 1912 Hyde wrote: "For a long time we have been painfully aware of a serious inequality in social opportunities which we are offering our students." In response, the College purchased a house at 264 Maine Street to serve as the location for a "Bowdoin Club" which included all students not in fraternities. Thus, the long history of the College makes clear that Bowdoin has repeatedly made conscious decisions not to develop adequate College facilities for residential life, while at the same time trying to influence residential and social life on campus through the fraternities.

As a result of conscious neglect by the College, the extraordinary promise of the special and unique institution that is Bowdoin simply is not fully experienced today by significant numbers of Bowdoin students. It is clear to the Commission that the College's long-standing and self-conscious disengagement from the social and residential lives of Bowdoin students must end. But engagement by the College does not mean dictating the lives of students. Instead, it means offering supportive structures and resources that will permit students themselves to design activities and shape their residential experience. Today, those resources and supporting structures do not exist for the majority of Bowdoin students. Our challenge is to bring them into being.

It will not be a simple task for Bowdoin to take on broader responsibility for supporting the residential and social lives of all its students. To do so will require significant effort and the commitment of substantial resources, especially for capital needs. However, the College must and can work toward a model of social and residential life that realizes "The Offer of the College" for every Bowdoin student.

Part III. Moving Forward: Recommendations for Enhancing the Learning Community at Bowdoin

The Commission has seriously considered alternative courses that the College might take to develop structures and resources for residential life that include all students and leave to them the opportunity and responsibility for making the most of their residential experience at Bowdoin. Our deliberations lead us to make recommendations concerning a clear philosophy of residential life, a new way to provide structure and resources for residential life, and the future of fraternities at the College.

A. A Philosophy of Residential Life

The first charge to and task of the Commission was to develop a statement of values that could guide its deliberations and provide a framework for policy decisions about residential life at Bowdoin. The proposed statement draws heavily from what we have heard from alumni and students about their experiences at and aspirations for Bowdoin. It reflects in many ways the central virtues of idealized fraternity life at a time when virtually all students were members and draws implicitly on central elements of Hyde's "The Offer of the College." Thus, it is a statement rooted in the best of Bowdoin's past but directed toward a present that is vastly different from the 1906 of Hyde's College and a future that promises continuing change. We believe that it should provide a touchstone for the College as it defines programs, designs and remodels buildings, allocates resources, and sets policies as well as guidance for undergraduates who, we hope, will read, reflect on, implement, and help modify it in the years ahead.

INTRODUCTION

We start with the premise that a residential college adds significantly to the education of students when it provides the opportunity for a distinctive and dynamic learning community to develop. In such a community, students are encouraged, both directly and indirectly, to engage actively in the quest for knowledge both inside and outside the classroom and to take responsibility for themselves and for their community. They are challenged to grow personally by constant contact with new experiences and different ways of viewing the world. Simultaneously, they are supported and encouraged by friends, faculty, and other community members and find opportunities for spontaneous as well as structured activities. Such a community promotes the intellectual and personal growth of individuals and encourages mutual understanding and respect in the context of diversity.

A learning community has a distinctive set of values and qualities which support individual growth and development. These values emerge from and reinforce the finest traditions and heritage of the College. By maintaining rich relationships with the world beyond, the College prepares students for engagement in the local, national, and international communities and connects them with the larger Bowdoin family.

VALUES OF A LEARNING COMMUNITY

Engagement in active learning and inquiry - Such a community is characterized by a lively intellectual life of inquiry, discussion, debate, and respectful disagreement; vigorous pursuit of knowledge and understanding both independently and collaboratively; the highest standards of academic and intellectual honesty; and celebration of the arts through creation, performance, and appreciation.
Challenge and growth - A residential community brings together people of varying experiences, values, beliefs, and interests in the recognition that much learning and personal growth come through the creative friction created in contact with difference. Such a community also encourages its members to develop their own interests and talents as individuals and together in groups and provides opportunities for leadership and collaboration.
Freedom of inquiry and expression - A learning community encourages free expression of widely varying views; it challenges assumptions and values.
Mutual respect and civility of discourse - In a learning community differences are prized and respected and disagreement is not meant or understood as personal animosity.
Concern for others - In a learning community, members care about their neighbors, encourage their achievements, and support them when they need assistance.
Shared responsibility for the community - A learning community requires honesty, high integrity, and personal responsibility of its members and expects that they will hold one another accountable for living up to these values. Members of such a community learn to collaborate with one another in solving community problems.
Friendship and fun - In a learning community members find close and life-long friends, relax together, meet new people, and enjoy life. Active and varied athletic, recreational, and social activities provide a context for healthy fun, as do the spontaneous activities of students.
Connection to the larger community - A learning community thrives in its relative isolation from the immediate demands and commitments of the world, but cannot accomplish its mission without meaningful connections that link it to that world outside. Learning is enriched through bonds between alumni, parents, and the College, through voluntary social service and political and social action that teach students by engaging them in the world, through appropriate opportunities to study in other settings, and through a lively parade of visitors to campus to share talents, views, and experiences.
Commitment to serving the common good outside as well as within the College - The learning community to which we aspire at Bowdoin values and supports the activities of its members which contribute to the quality of life at the College, in Brunswick, in Maine, and in the world beyond. The community offers opportunities to serve and celebrates the work of those who do so.
Affirmation of Bowdoin's history and its finest traditions - In a learning community at Bowdoin, members join together in solemn ceremonies such as Convocation and Commencement; at celebratory events such as Homecoming and Reunion Weekend; in myriad other recurrent events that remind the community members of their connections to one another and to the past and future of their College.

The Commission recommends that the Board of Trustees endorse this statement of "A Philosophy of Residential Life."

B. New Resources and Structure for Residential Life at Bowdoin

With these values as a guide, the challenge for the Commission and the College is to design a framework for residential life that challenges students to live and learn together in smaller, non-exclusionary communities that connect students to the College. Many believe that the system of broad fraternity membership which the College promoted in the past provided such a framework. The conception of residential life that we offer as a starting point for planning and discussion draws heavily on that idealized past of nearly universal fraternity membership, and centers on the establishment of a new College House system which would include all students from the day they set foot on campus.

This conception of residential life builds on the College's long-standing practice of housing first-year students in the brick dormitories at the center of campus. For many students this first-year experience encourages a sense of belonging and community with other dormitory residents, especially with thoughtful programming by the residential life staff. At present, these emerging group identities among diverse, randomly selected students are fractured first by fraternity rush and second by the dispersion of the sophomore class. A fundamental goal of this proposed plan is to provide the resources and organization to support the continuation of that dormitory identity and enrich it by increasing connections with upperclass students, faculty, staff, and alumni. At the same time, we wish to preserve a substantial degree of individual student choice about living arrangements and a reasonable variety of housing options, especially for juniors and seniors. In general, we envision greater intensity and organization of residential life for first-year students and sophomores and much greater choice and dispersion for juniors and seniors. Juniors and seniors will continue to be connected through the House system, however, and will have leadership roles in that system, both as officers and as members of the residential life staff.

This outline of a plan for residential life is intended as a starting point for discussion. If it is to work, as we are confident it will, it must evolve with students, faculty, staff, and alumni adding their own ideas and reshaping it in the context of the Philosophy of Residential Life. Such discussions might begin immediately, pending Board endorsement of the outline which follows.

A COLLEGE HOUSE SYSTEM

First-year students will continue to be randomly assigned to the dormitories at the center of campus, where they will reside with student residential life staff, ideally juniors and seniors. Each dormitory or section of a dormitory (e.g. North Maine) will be associated with a College House, for example, 238 Maine Street, Burnett, or a remodeled Coe Infirmary. Each House will include a catering kitchen, capacity for occasional dining by as many as 80-90 students, recreational and social space, quiet study areas, and rooms for students to live in.

Membership of each House will consist of all first-year students in the associated dorm or dormitory section and all students who resided at the same location during their first year at Bowdoin. Every student will be a member of the same House throughout the four years at Bowdoin. Ideally, there will be at least 12 College Houses.

Selected upperclass students - preferably students who resided in the associated dorm in their first year - will live in each House and assist in developing programming and leadership for it. They, along with proctors, will be able to communicate College and House traditions and Bowdoin's residential life philosophy.

After the first year, and each year thereafter, students will have increasing housing choices. All sophomores will live on campus in dormitories or other College-owned facilities. Juniors and seniors will have the option, with permission, of living off campus. Blocks of students (of limited size) will be permitted access to group space in the housing lottery. Although House members might no longer live together during the upperclass years, they will remain participating members of the House, and may choose to remain together through the acquisition of block housing.

The funding of social events will be organized through the College House structure. Each House will have a budget drawn in part from the Student Activities Fees and from dues which might be voted and collected by the House, totaling perhaps $50-$75 per student per year. Each house and its budget will be administered by officers elected by students. In this way the House system will provide all students with facilities, resources, and an organization to design and carry out programming and activities. In addition, the College should employ at least four staff members to be known as Chamberlain Interns (two such positions are currently funded but titled as Assistant Directors of Residential Life) - typically recent graduates of the College - to live in student housing and provide support and assistance to students connected to the Houses.

Faculty members will be assigned advising roles with first-year and sophomore students belonging to each House. They will have a continuing association with that House. It is hoped that alumni also will identify with the Houses perhaps as former fraternity members or as former House members. College staff members will also be encouraged to adopt a House and establish a relationship with it and its students.

We envision that students will generally eat their meals at a central College dining facility, but that some meals will be scheduled from time-to-time at each House - for example, a House might arrange to have Sunday night meals for first-year members at the House with faculty and invited upperclass students also welcome. In addition, there could be periodic dinners of sophomore members of the House. Junior and senior House classes might also have occasional dinners at the House, and there might be general House buffets at regular intervals. The House kitchens will thus become catering kitchens and will also be available for informal student use.

Programming designed by students and residential life staff will be focused on first-year and sophomore students through the Houses. Dorm or floor meetings for first-year students could occur in the Houses, along with other activities, beginning with orientation. For sophomores, programs might address important issues faced by sophomores - for example, decisions about the selection of a major, study away, and summer employment opportunities. Proctors and upper class students will be encouraged to develop and sustain House traditions and to teach students about the history of the College.

Students, in conjunction with residential life staff, will have the resources and support to design their own programs including House and campus-wide parties and dances, lectures, discussions, community service activities, concerts, fund-raising events, and so on. House dues along with funds from the Student Activity Fee will permit considerable flexibility in programming, including parties at which alcohol is available to students of age. Students in each House will have responsibility for their own budget, and will also have substantial responsibility for maintaining the building and its grounds, with the assistance of College staff.

It will be possible to connect other aspects of student life to the College House system. For example, intramural athletics could be organized around the Houses. Student government could be organized on the basis of residential or House representation rather than the current at-large system. A residentially based model of student government appears to work well at other institutions and diminishes some of the difficulties of a system where student representatives have indistinct constituencies with whom to communicate. Further, some of the Judicial Board functions pertaining to Social Code issues within the Houses might be carried out by elected House leaders.

IMAGINING THE COLLEGE HOUSE SYSTEM IN ACTION

We envision the possibility that over time, each of these Houses will develop a distinctive tradition and identity connecting students across class years and to the College. A small library or display case in each house might collect memorabilia about the House and the College. First-year students and upperclass students might drop by the House for leisure activity and to be with friends. Because of the varied composition of each of these Houses, students would meet a wide variety of new friends. Both campus-wide and smaller events would be widely varied as Houses plan them on their own or sponsor events jointly with other student groups and organizations.

Students should be able to find expanded opportunities for leadership and responsibility in the Houses. Students would have both individual and collective responsibility for the character and quality of the living environment in each House. Some faculty will choose to develop identities with particular houses and drop in to participate in events, meet students, or share a meal. Each House might establish some connection to the local community and regularly undertake community service projects. Those projects might also focus on serving the College in some way.

This conception of a House system is meant to be illustrative rather than prescriptive. But the brief illustration makes clear the great potential of the model to support the values of residential life that the Commission, in consultation with the College community, has articulated. It is particularly important to us that the House system include every Bowdoin student and that it provide venues for students of varied backgrounds to come together to plan activities, make decisions, take responsibility, and learn to live and work together.

The Commission recognizes that this illustration is just the beginning. We anticipate that the details of the new structure will be developed through participation of members of the Bowdoin community. Much flexibility will be required in implementation so as to leave room for student initiative and permit adjustments and innovations as students respond to and alter the College House system in practice. However, it will be the College's responsibility to provide the structure and resources to enable this system to grow and change on its own. These resources consist of Houses, dues and a budget, responsibility and accountability, a supportive organizational structure, faculty and staff involvement, and availability of assistance from residential life staff.

The Commission recommends that the Board of Trustees endorse this conceptual description of a College House system as a statement of the broad outline of a new plan for residential life.

C. The Future of Fraternities at Bowdoin

The discussion of fraternities at Bowdoin has tended to confuse two issues. On the one hand, there are arguments on behalf of the character of life which fraternities at their best embody. As the proposed residential life model indicates, the Commission has been convinced by these arguments on behalf of fraternities, and is trying, as much as possible, to create the structure for a House system that will enable all students to be part of lively, self-governing smaller communities with resources to organize activities on campus.

On the other hand, there are arguments favoring the preservation of fraternities as independent organizations. In addressing this issue, the Commission has had to weigh the strengths and weaknesses of the existing fraternity system as it relates to the Residential Life Philosophy to which we aspire. In addition, we must examine whether fraternities would advance or detract from the College House system that we recommend.

In considering the future of fraternities, the Commission has identified four options. The College could permit continuation of the status quo; use College resources to strengthen fraternities; encourage the continued evolution of fraternities into private, coeducational social clubs coexisting with a new College House system; or replace fraternities entirely with the College House structure which we propose. We have considered each of these options as follows:

Maintain the status quo: It is clear that the fraternity system at Bowdoin has changed enormously since the 1950s and 1960s and that, without substantial intervention by the College, the system as a whole would continue a marginal existence, even if one or more fraternities flourish. We believe that the College cannot simply stand by and let the system limp along on its own or decline of its own accord. The process of decline is too painful, the relationship of fraternities to the life of the campus too central, and the experience of students living through the process too important, for the College to leave the system alone.

Invest in and rebuild the fraternity system: Some alumni have called for the College to allocate resources to recreate the strong fraternity system of the past when nearly all students were members of fraternities and the fraternities were well-cared for and financially secure. In our view, this is not feasible. In a very significant way, the conception of residential life we propose would accomplish a similar result through the College House System.

We know that less than one-third of current Bowdoin students - and even less of the pool of talented students which we hope to attract - express interest in fraternities or sororities. Without greater student interest, this alternative would require the College to lend substantial resources to independent organizations composed of a self-selected minority of students and over which the College would have no clear administrative oversight. We believe that this would be inappropriate, especially given the College's limited resources.

Support the continuing evolution of fraternities into selective private social clubs coexisting with College Houses: Ever since fraternities took the initiative to admit women following the advent of coeducation, these organizations have been evolving slowly into coeducational social clubs. Nonetheless, their nominal identity as "fraternities" persists. The transformation of fraternities into social clubs has involved more than coeducation. The national affiliations for most of Bowdoin's fraternities no longer exist. The three exceptions are Psi Upsilon and Theta Delta Chi, whose national organizations allow Bowdoin women as full members, and Bowdoin's Alpha Delta Phi Society, which is separate from the Alpha Delta Phi national fraternity. The extent to which Bowdoin's fraternities retain the trappings of the traditional fraternity varies considerably among the existing houses. The fraternities generally are selective in membership, enforce an active, though mysterious, initiation process, and perform "secret rites." One or two fraternities retain few, if any, of these traditional attributes.

In light of this variation and evolution, one option - which the Commission examined at length - would be to have the College support or permit a small number of fraternities to persist as self-owned, independent entities, while evolving into social clubs that would exist in parallel with the College House system.

We believe two competing House systems could not easily coexist at this small college and would duplicate resources. Further, this approach fails to resolve several key problems. First, the organizations would remain self-selecting, excluding the majority of Bowdoin students, and their presence would compete directly with the College Houses, dividing students and reducing the sense of College community. Second, the resource problems of these organizations would remain unaddressed assuming the College did not devote substantial funds to them. We believe it inappropriate for the College to allocate its resources into independently-owned social facilities over which the College has little or no authority, especially given the need for sizable investment in other aspects of residential life at Bowdoin. Third, such organizations would remain legally independent and continue to have an ambiguous legal relationship to the College. For the fraternities, supervisory roles would remain with volunteer alumni leaders, without clear prospect that such leadership will continue in the future. The potential exposure to claims of legal liability for the College would also remain.

Campus-wide College-owned House system: A fourth option, and the one recommended by the Commission, is to replace the fraternity system with a campus-wide College-owned House system. The House system we propose builds on the very best traditions of fraternities at Bowdoin but recognizes the vastly changed circumstances of the College today. It is clear to us that the fraternity system remembered by many alumni disappeared some time ago. Most of the remaining fraternities simply cannot be brought back to the ideal that many alumni hold so dear. Bowdoin College must officially acknowledge the disappearance of the old fraternity system. With the cooperation of the fraternity corporations, we can build a new system that helps preserve old traditions while at the same time offering new opportunities for all Bowdoin students.

The following resolution was adopted unanimously by the Commission:

The Commission agrees that the status quo of Bowdoin's residential life cannot continue, and that Bowdoin should adopt a College House system. A view was strongly expressed and fully debated that the option of social clubs, consisting of elements of self-selection and independent ownership, could be maintained in parallel with the House system. To move the College forward, however, the Commission on balance agrees that in order to develop an effective House system, a parallel system, even in modified form, cannot continue. For this reason, the Commission on Residential life recommends that Bowdoin abolish the fraternity system and adopt a non-exclusive House system, owned by the College and open to all Bowdoin students.

The transition to a College House system will not be an easy one, but we believe that it must be made for the good of the College. In making that transition, we have recognized that fraternities continue to have members today, the newest of whom will graduate in May 2000. The wrenching experiences of the spring of 1996 make clear the high emotional cost for members when their houses are shut down. We acknowledge that cost and wish to minimize it as best we can, while at the same time making the transition to a new, more inclusive College House system. Accordingly, the Commission recommends that undergraduates presently in fraternities be grandfathered as active members until graduation in May 2000.

The Commission recommends that the following policies be adopted by the College:

After June 30, 1997, it will be a violation of the Student Social Code for students to pledge or accept membership in a fraternity, sorority or other similar self-selecting, self-perpetuating independent social organization.
All sophomores will be required to live in College-owned buildings beginning in the Fall of 1998.
All current undergraduate members of fraternities will be permitted to continue their association in those organizations until graduation in May 2000, at which time fraternities will no longer be recognized by the College or permitted to operate at Bowdoin.
For fraternity members whose houses close or are transferred to College ownership prior to May 2000, the College will arrange block housing and meeting space for continuing members of those organizations.

D. Policy Assumptions and Goals

The conception of residential life we propose rests on a series of policy assumptions and goals that are essential to the development of a vibrant learning community, bringing students back to the central core of the campus and reinvigorating life there. These assumptions are set out in summary form below. They assume a student population of 1,550.

The College will provide housing for at least 90% of the total student body and dining capacity to meet the needs of all of its students.
Over the next 5-7 years, at least 250 additional beds need to be constructed in dormitories close to the center of campus, creating the possibility of a "sophomore quadrangle."
The College will rely on expanded central dining facilities to serve students now fed in fraternities, and will also develop and maintain the capacity to offer occasional catered meals in the College Houses.
All first-year and sophomore students will reside in College-owned housing and dine on campus.
First-year students will continue to reside in the brick dormitories, although increased availability of dormitory space in the future might make it possible to consider mixing first-year students with sophomores, juniors, and seniors.
As additional College housing becomes available, the College will begin to reserve apartments for use by seniors and juniors.
The College will plan in the long term to increase the proportion of single rooms available, perhaps substituting new housing for apartments.
Common space will be increased and improved in each of the existing first-year dormitories and Coles Tower.
The College will endeavor to work cooperatively with the fraternity corporations to find mutually acceptable terms and conditions that will allow Bowdoin to acquire fraternity houses, upgrade them, and make them available as College Houses or as student residences available through the lottery.
The College will not develop a theme house program, but will use a "block lottery" system to allocate blocks of rooms to groups of students of varying sizes. The "block lottery" will include space in small houses.
The College will continue to offer an option to students to live in a Wellness House connected with a substance-free dormitory.
The College will work with students as they consider whether and how to collect College House dues in order to supplement modest House budgets collected through the Student Activities Fee, beginning next academic year.

E. Remodeling and Construction

The College has avoided allocating adequate resources to residential life for so long that there is now the need for substantial expenditure, both for remodeling existing buildings and for new construction. We outline these overall needs by general category as they relate to our model for residential life.

Creating and improving social space in existing residence halls: A central conclusion of the Reaccreditation study, forums with students, and our own deliberations was the need for increased and improved common space in College dormitories and apartment facilities. Tours of other colleges reveal a striking contrast between the extent and quality of common space available at Bowdoin and similar institutions. In other colleges, common spaces, consisting of attractive alcoves, game rooms, television lounges, reading rooms, and social space, are located throughout residence halls and add immeasurably to the quality of social life. To enhance the social and residential lives of its students, Bowdoin must increase and improve common spaces in its residence halls. The prospect of College Houses that provide such space for all students diminishes the need for very costly conversions of existing dormitories and the loss of substantial numbers of rooms in the process. Nonetheless, some added and improved common space is necessary in the dorms for small groups of students to gather.

The greatest need for these spaces is in the brick dormitories. Some upgrading of space has already begun in direct response to concerns expressed at the open student forum in October. The College has installed cable access televisions for each of the first-year dorms and other college dorms with suitable common space. Modest remodeling of some existing common spaces and enlargement of others can do much to improve the brick dorms, at a possible cost of bed space.

Coles Tower has lost common space to offices and other uses during the past decade or more, and we hope that some of those spaces can be reclaimed. A first step will come with additions to Wentworth dining (recommended below) that will create office space for Dining Service and permit conversion of the first floor Tower office back into a TV lounge. In addition, a small kitchen should be constructed for the use of Coles Tower residents.

Brunswick, Harpswell, and Pine Street Apartments are likely to continue to be used for housing mainly juniors and seniors in the years ahead. Creation of central lounge space might be considered as a way to increase some connections among students living in the apartments. In addition, the Harpswell and Pine Street Apartments need laundry facilities.

General improvements in the Brick Dorms: Plans will be developed in the coming academic year for a substantial renovation of electrical, heating, and plumbing systems in Hyde Hall as well as some cosmetic work. These improvements should move forward as soon as possible. In addition, other brick dormitories - Appleton, Maine and Winthrop - need to have their bathrooms reconfigured so that they are no longer the de facto hallways on floors.

Improving or converting existing college buildings for use as College Houses: An essential part of the plan for residential life is the creation of College Houses with sufficient capacity for dining, social space, small catering kitchens, and both single and double rooms for students. The initial challenge is to find houses that can be associated with first-year dormitories beginning in Fall 1997. Although we would ultimately like to have at least 12 such Houses, we must begin with a smaller number. Without the use of existing fraternity houses, which we hope will become available to the College, it will be difficult to find sufficient space appropriate for this purpose.

Our provisional short-term proposal is for the development of six houses, one for each first-year dormitory. These six houses might be Baxter, 238 Maine Street (now Wellness), Boody Street, Burnett, Coe Infirmary, and Howard Hall. Each of these buildings would require some modification to be suitable for use as College Houses. These range from enlarging the common space in Howard by opening the first floor apartment, to substantial renovation of Coe Infirmary which would require the relocation of Counseling and Health Services. We anticipate that Howard will be a "wellness" dormitory for sophomores and serve as a College House for Hyde Hall which will continue as the first-year "wellness" dormitory. The other locations provide plausible College Houses where students could gather and hold social events.

Construction of new residence halls: The College does not have sufficient housing capacity for all of its students, and too much of the housing that it currently provides is in apartments away from the center of campus. The College must expand dormitory space on campus, particularly for sophomores. Over the next 5-7 years the need to add housing capacity, reduce reliance on apartments, and bring sophomores back to the center of the campus will require the construction of at least 250 new dormitory beds. Because resources are limited and the needs are great in many areas of residential life, we propose a first stage plan that would develop a design for staged construction of all 250 beds, but begins with construction of 100-115 of these beds.

Expansion of dining: The shortage of dining facilities has reached the critical stage at Bowdoin and will grow only more problematic with the gradual closing of fraternity kitchens. It has long been recognized that the Wentworth Hall kitchen is far too small. Having considered a variety of options, the Commission recommends the expansion of kitchen and dining space at Wentworth to accommodate 200-225 new seats and to provide flexibility for future expansion. The efficiencies of centralized dining far outweigh the benefits of small, separate dining locations. The challenge is to manage what other Colleges have accomplished - a large central dining space that permits comfort, intimacy and alternative settings.

Potential acquisition and remodeling of fraternity houses: The College should make every effort to work with the fraternity house corporations in exploring ways to incorporate as many of the houses as possible into the College House system and thus to continue the long traditions of their houses as gathering places for Bowdoin students. College ownership of the buildings could involve opportunities for the fraternity house corporations to recommend names for the buildings and arrangements for the preservation and display of fraternity memorabilia as part of the history of the house. The availability of these houses will play a crucial role in the success of the College House system. Most of them would need substantial investment in renovation to bring them up to a reasonable College standard.

Shifts in location of student apartments: Apartments are attractive to many upperclass students at Bowdoin but are distant from the center of the campus, resulting in both dispersion and isolation for their residents. Further, apartments tend to isolate students from one another. In the long run, the College should reduce its reliance on apartments while retaining a significant number as part of the housing mix from which upperclass students may choose. In the shorter run, the College should consider converting the particularly isolated Mayflower apartments from student use to faculty use, in exchange for student occupancy of existing faculty apartments in Mustard House and on Federal Street which are nearer to the campus.

Other improvements in College-owned residence halls: Other college residences need modest improvements, such as lounge spaces and small kitchens in Smith House, Copeland, and 30 College Street.

Construction of new first-year dormitories: In the long run, it may be to the College's advantage to end reliance on triples to house first-year students. In the Commission's visits to other campuses, we observed that double rooms are far more typical for first-year students than are triples. If Bowdoin is to eliminate triples, however, it should be done for all first-year students at the same time. For now, use of triples seems to be accepted in part because it is an experience shared by nearly all first-year students. Eliminating triples would require the construction of 135 new beds in first-year dormitories.

Staffing and operating cost implications: The proposed changes in Bowdoin's residential life structure will increase operating expenses at the College. In particular, custodial, heating, and repair costs will be increased as a result of additions to the physical plant. To succeed, the College House system must be supported by a modest program of Chamberlain Interns that would employ at least two additional recent graduates (two are currently on staff). They would serve as residential life staff working directly with the new Houses and living in College facilities. The Dining Service is likely to experience little net change in staff size as fraternity kitchens close and an expanded Wentworth opens. These added operating costs may be offset by increases in revenue from a larger number of students paying room and board fees to the College.

The Commission recommends that priority be given to certain remodeling and construction projects described in this report. Specifically, the Commission recommends the creation and upgrading of common spaces in the brick dorms, proceeding with the planned upgrade of Hyde Hall, the first stage remodeling and preparation of College Houses, construction of 100-115 additional dormitory beds, and expansion of dining at Wentworth. Further, the Commission recommends that the operating budget for 1997-98 include support for two additional Chamberlain Interns in addition to the two already budgeted.

F. Issues of Administrative Policy

In the course of our investigation we have heard many concerns raised about a wide variety of matters that affect the quality of student life at Bowdoin and the character of the learning community on the campus. We comment here briefly on these matters noting that administrative action either has been or should be taken to address these issues.

Sophomore guarantee of housing: The Commission recognized early in its work that the lack of guaranteed housing for sophomores is of great concern to both students and parents. This anxiety about housing filters back to first-year students and diminishes the quality of their experience at Bowdoin. This places Bowdoin at a competitive disadvantage with peer institutions. In response to this concern, we are pleased that the Dean's Office has changed its policy for the coming academic year and has notified parents and students that any sophomore desiring to live in a College residence will be able to do so. This policy change is made possible by achieving better balance in the number of students studying away during the fall and spring semesters.

Alcohol policy: The Commission has reviewed Bowdoin's alcohol policy and enforcement and has been impressed with the continuing work of the Alcohol Policy Task Force. This appears to provide a reasonable approach to the vexing issues of underage drinking and the health and safety problems connected with alcohol usage. The College must have policies that conform to State Law, which makes drinking by persons under 21 years of age illegal. At the same time, it must recognize the social reality that underage drinking occurs. We believe that the Alcohol Policy Task Force - perhaps with a clarified sense of mission and responsibility - is the best vehicle for developing realistic policies and enforcement. These policies should ultimately emphasize alcohol education and counseling, enforcement that is fair yet firm, and funding of alternative social activities that will shift the paradigm away from one that places alcohol at the center of social life.

Safety concerns: We have heard concerns about safety at Bowdoin expressed particularly by women students. The College staff is well aware of these concerns and must continue to take steps to address them. Some action has already been taken. For example, the blue light phones installed over Christmas break have been well received by students. A key card system for access to the brick dormitories will be operational by the Fall of 1997.

Pricing, financial aid and housing: We have observed that students on financial aid tend to opt for the cheapest available housing, often moving from College buildings into the private marketplace. This is worrisome for many reasons, and we urge examination of the college rent structure and financial aid policies in light of these patterns.

Supportive academic services: Some students speaking about the character of the learning community at Bowdoin have suggested that the College does not do enough to welcome and acclimate students whose high school preparation is weak. The alienating experience of "sink or swim" might be diminished if the College were to develop support programs in writing and mathematics open to all students. We are pleased that staff from the offices of the Dean for Academic Affairs and the Dean of Student Affairs are developing a joint proposal for a learning and teaching center at Bowdoin.

Part IV: Conclusion

Bowdoin is a wonderful college with a distinguished history and strong traditions. At this time Bowdoin has the opportunity to draw valuable lessons from its past in order to build a stronger learning community as the College moves into the next century. Many of these lessons come from Bowdoin's fraternity system which worked well for decades. Changed circumstances make a transition to a new structure for residential life paramount, if the College is to continue to excel and if it is to provide for all of its students a rich and challenging residential experience. The members of the Commission are excited by the opportunities of a new College House system in which every Bowdoin student is included. We hope that Bowdoin students, alumni, faculty, and staff will share that excitement and participate actively in translating the philosophy of residential life into practice. As always, the College needs the support and resources of the whole Bowdoin family if it is to bring to new generations of Bowdoin students "The Offer of the College."

Donald R. Kurtz '52, Chair
Marijane L. Benner Browne '83, Trustee
Craig W. Bradley, Dean of Student Affairs
Charles G. Bridge '61, President of Kappa Delta Theta Corporation
Tracy J. Burlock '81, Trustee
Hiram J. Hamilton '97, Chair of the Student Executive Board
Nahyon Lee '97
Craig A. McEwen, Professor of Sociology
Sarah F. McMahon, Associate Professor of History
Richard A. Mersereau '69, Executive Assistant to the President and Trustees
Jane McKay Morrell '81, President of the Alumni Council
Richard A. Morrell '50, Trustee
Kimberly A. Pacelli '98
Peter M. Small '64, Trustee
William A. Torrey, Vice President for Development and College Relations
John A. Woodcock, Jr. '72, Trustee

Summary of Recommendations

We summarize the recommendations made in the body of this report and ask that the Board of Trustees endorse them in principle. Such action by the Board will permit the Commission to engage students, faculty, staff, alumni, and the administration in an active planning process before the Commission presents its final report in May.

Recommendation 1:

The Commission recommends that the Board of Trustees endorse the statement of "A Philosophy of Residential Life" contained in this report.

Recommendation 2:

The Commission recommends that the Board of Trustees endorse the conceptual description of a College House system described in this report as a statement of the broad outline of a new plan for residential life.

Recommendation 3: