One of the most concrete reforms in the “Moving Dartmouth Forward” plan is the implementation of a residential housing system. The idea makes sense. It does not represent a push to create an alternative to the Greek system, but creates new shared spaces on campus — ones in which students can feel grounded despite the disorienting effects of the D-Plan. Based on my experiences living in Foley House, I strongly believe that these types of communities will improve student residential life.
Foley House, known for its nightly dinners and its egregious distance from the center of campus, is a highly successful example of what happens when you throw several students from various backgrounds into a space they must all look after together. On a whim, I decided to move into Foley during my junior fall. Most of my friends had taken off-terms, and I figured I had nothing to lose by testing out this whole “living learning community” thing, despite knowing none of the other residents. Now, almost two terms later, I want to high five my past self for taking the risk to live in a house that I knew almost nothing about. This feeling is not exclusive to me — most of my housemates have expressed a similar sentiment. At the end of each term, Foley’s residents have a shared commitment to a house that is hard to describe to non-residents.
Because Foley’s purpose is rather vague and abstract — it is a “non-exclusive, coed household where all residents share responsibilities and decision-making,” according to its website — its residents choose to join for wildly different reasons. In the fall, some of us just wanted to cook, some of us wanted to live farther away from campus and one student was randomly assigned to live there. Strangely enough, I think this diversity is critical to the house’s success. Were Foley to be explicitly interest-based like other LLCs, it would likely attract a more specific type of person. Foley, though, has no one “type” of resident. Dartmouth’s residential houses, too, will have no one “type” of resident. The onus is on both Foley and the housing system to overcome this lack of shared background — though Foley proves that from disparate backgrounds you can build a residential community that is arguably more cohesive than many Greek houses.
As a result, Foley is distinct on this campus. Much of Dartmouth’s campus, I find, is bereft of the type of respect that Foley’s residents have for the space. Freshmen floors may grow close, but some of their physical spaces are trashed on weekends. Greek-affiliated students care for their houses, but nonresidents often disrespect the space. Upperclassmen housing, currently a very transient system, almost encourages a detachment from our physical spaces. It seems that other LLCs fail to generate the same mutual respect and care amongst their residents that Foley does, as they are not responsible for the entirety of the space themselves.
Foley is already a successful residential space on this campus, one where deep connections are organic and inevitable. This is because Foley-ites, as residents are known, care deeply about their shared living space. This unparalleled level of care is a direct result of shared responsibility and chores — each resident has a vested interest in the house. Administrators should therefore look at Foley as a model — a tried-and-true residential community — as they implement the new housing system.
My experience in Foley makes me optimistic about the system “Moving Dartmouth Forward” has proposed. If more students cared about the spaces they inhabit, I am confident more students will treat each other with respect. If students sense that they have a shared ownership over their living space, then they will be more conscious of the impact their actions and interactions with others have on the community around them. Granted, this is not the guaranteed outcome — the details of the housing system are yet to be fully worked out. There is no way to know now whether it will successfully foster a sense of community among residents. That is why I urge administrators to maximize the potential of the new residential system to foster cooperative and invested groups of students as they continue to develop the details of the proposal — and this will only be achieved by considering existing models of community.
