Response to Wolfline schedules
Is this truly an issue that warrants such emotion and angst? It seems like the Wolfline makes at least some change each semester/year, so I’ve long been in the habit of checking the website for current routes in the days and weeks leading up to the start of classes. If a sudden, overnight change were made in the middle of a semester, it might make sense to send an email, but the context is very different at the beginning of the school year.
For me, this is as much of a personal responsibility as checking my class schedule to see if there have been any changes in class times, room assignments, wait list status, or required textbooks. It makes no sense that students of the caliber we expect from our College of Engineering should expect to receive a personal email inviting them to familiarize themselves with current University services at the beginning of the semester.
It is highly unusual that (based on the anecdote in Mr. Lewis’ article) none of these high-caliber students waiting at the Oval decided to check the Transloc map on a cellphone or laptop when the bus did not arrive at the time they expected. I regularly see students waiting for buses checking the realtime map on their phones, and would expect at least one of the technically-inclined students in a crowd at the bus stop to have done so. As the buses are usually punctual, it would make sense for concerned students to check the online map or place a phone call to the Wolfline Manager (the 515-WOLF number painted on all buses ).
In concert with recent calls for increased regulation of free speech and expression on campus, this perspective seems to support the notion that students in the college environment are not capable of the responsibilities necessary to be mature, functioning adults. This is highly disappointing.
Response to dorm visitation
Ms. Shah’s argument is very sensational given the reality of the visitation policies in place. The reference to the United States Constitution is a vivid opener, but it bears little relevance to the meat of her discussion, as her concerns focus on University Housing policies, which are not state laws. More to the point, her discussion includes rationale that mitigates the severity of the issue altogether.
The policy appears to be designed to prevent members of the opposite sex from loitering around single-sex halls and dorms, but does not preclude members of the opposite sex from staying the night with someone in the dorm. There is no need to sneak a member of the opposite sex into a hall, so long as the person accompanying the guest is also providing them the right to stay in their dorm room. The only time a guest would be prevented from staying the night is if the host’s roommate objects — a policy which is very good to have.
A better argument for Ms. Shah would have been to discuss the inconvenience for co-ed study groups wishing to gather in common areas of a dorm. This is a grey area, as it appears that members of a co-ed study group who are of the opposite gender of the hall’s residents could be required to leave the hall after a certain time in the evening under this policy. Enforcement is the discretion of residence hall staff, but it is clear that this is an area of potential issue.
Study groups being forced to meet in co-ed dorms or the library isn’t nearly so passionate a topic as frustrated relationships and trysts, but the latter is not really problem of the current policies. As long as students are aware of the letter of the policy and have an agreement with their roommate permitting overnight guests, there is no problem with a member of the opposite sex staying the night.
