Mandatory freshmen housing bad idea [...and more]

As a recent alumni of LSU, former RHA member, and former employee of Residential Life, I am writing to express opposition to mandatory freshmen residency. First, let me say that University officials are absolutely right when they cite statistics saying living on-campus yields higher grades, more involvement and higher retention rates for freshmen. I lived on campus for several years, benefited greatly from it and recommend living on campus at every opportunity. However, requiring freshmen to live on campus is a short-sighted, unwise policy that will diminish the quality of on-campus housing both from the bottom up and the top down.

It may seem obvious, but campus residents have chosen to live on campus and that matters. They appreciate its benefits, enjoy living the LSU experience and are more likely to be University and academically oriented. Their attitude "rubs off" on other residents and reinforces itself. This is why on-campus students are, generally, "better" students by all the normal metrics. When you force an unwilling population to live on campus, the effect of this on-campus mindset is undermined. This eats away at the quality of on-campus housing from the bottom up.

When you guarantee a certain amount of income to an agency, such as Residential Life or University Dining, you take away the market forces that make them innovative, responsive and dynamic. In the past couple of years, Residential Life has suffered from significant under-enrollment, which many believe to be the result of students moving to near-campus apartments that have opened.

This market pressure should force Residential Life to examine its strengths, weaknesses and inefficiencies in order to make adjustments and offer a product that is more attractive to its market.

A freshmen residency requirement takes away that market force and insulates the decision makers from pressures that would otherwise ensure the quality of on-campus housing, thus eating away at the quality of on-campus housing from the top down.

Residential Life has an opportunity to respond to the challenge of the marketplace and deliver more attractive on-campus housing. But imposing a freshman residency requirement will let them avoid the market and duck the difficult questions on intrusive policies, quality and type of programming, accommodations and cost efficiency. The current administration in Residential Life has been fairly open to student input, but opportunities for improvement remain, and we cannot assume the same openness of future administrators.

Market forces are the ultimate check on incompetence and wrong-headedness and are necessary to keep University departments running well.

Chris Broussard

Alumni

Katrina not cause of course cancellation

Please permit me to correct some information regarding courses on the Holocaust that appeared in The Daily Reveille on Wednesday, April 26.

First, contrary to what was reported in the article on Hillel's commemoration of Yom HaShoah, REL 2120: The Holocaust has not been eliminated because of Katrina. The Department of Philosophy and

Religious Studies has ended its relationship with an agency that provided some funding for this course, so it is quite probable that we will not be able to offer the course as frequently as we have done in the past (indeed, its frequent offering was very unusual for a course taught by adjunct faculty and does not fulfill general education requirements). It remains, however, a vital and active course in our catalog.

Second, while the department was pleased that this funding allowed us to offer this course regularly, it has not been the only course to address this topic at LSU. It is the only course on this-topic currently listed as a part of the LSU catalog, but various departments have offered a number of special topics courses in Holocaust Studies (e.g., the Holocaust in Literature) in recent years. Indeed, the topic of the Holocaust is addressed in various courses offered throughout the University, including a number of courses in Religious Studies.

Lastly, REL 2120 will not be offered this fall because the department will be offering a special topics course in the history of anti-Semitism (not simply in the history of the Holocaust as was reported in another article). This course is an attempt to expand our offerings in Jewish Studies, not to contract them, but it will necessarily overlap with much of the material usually covered in REL 2120. Dr. Charles Isbell, Assistant Professor of Religious Studies and Director of Jewish Studies will be the instructor. Rabbi Barry Weinstein has been invited to participate in the course.

Robert M. Payne

Chairman

Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies

Protests could mar commencement

When I picked up The Daily Reveille before my math class this past Tuesday, I looked at the front page and my stomach dropped. I experienced that feeling you go through when you're dumped or when you come so close to winning but still lose.

I am worried that the views and opinions of one group of people might ruin, or at least put a damper on, what should be a positive, once in a lifetime, experience. I'm referring to the planned protest against the commencement speaker, Dick Cheney.

Although I feel that Dick Cheney might not be the best choice for a commencement speaker, I am excited to know that we will have a more prominent speaker than our chancellor, who was last year's speaker. No offense to Sean O'Keefe, but a speaker should have some sort of recognition outside of the LSU community, and I had no idea who he was before he became the LSU Chancellor. However, Vice President Cheney has this recognition.