Students protest denied parietal extension
Kevin Berchou, Paul Graham, Mike Pfaff,
Mike Snow and Seth Whetzel
The Mission Statement of the University of Notre Dame states, "The University prides itself on being an environment of teaching and learning which fosters the development in students of those disciplined habits of mind, body and spirit which characterize educated, skilled and free human beings.
Unfortunately, it appears that these noble ideas will not be reached anytime in the near future. In an effort to prevent changes that would allow students to grow into disciplined, free human beings committed to respectful communal living, the administration has structured the Campus Life Council (CLC) in a manner that will quash any student-led initiative to improve the campus community.
Members of the Student Senate and CLC led a student initiative to address some of the perceivable flaws in the implementation of the University's parietal policy. The students proposed a reasonable modification of the existing visiting hours to address current gender relations, academic and social problems facing the University.
After spending a semester researching the issue, through intensive conversation with and polling of students, the student task force arrived at the conclusion that extending visiting hours by a mere two hours (from 10 to 9 a.m. in the morning and from midnight to 1 a.m. in the evening) would produce tangible improvement in the day-to-day lives of the students.
In a referendum conducted by the Senate it was found that 80 percent of the student body (2,429 out of 3,038 respondents) favored these measures.
These measures would help students address the reality of an academic workload that requires students to work, often collaboratively, both early in the morning and late in the night.
Unfortunately the University placed its own designs before student initiative, an initiative it invited with the promise of consideration. As anyone in attendance at this week's CLC meeting can attest, the University had no intention of considering this effort.
When the issue arose at the meeting, students expressed the reasons why the University should heed the mandate of the students. The students stressed that they were not calling into question the institution of parietals, but rather that they were calling for a reform necessary for the academic, social and spiritual well being of the student body.
Seth Whetzel called for open debate in the hopes that progress could be reached through communication. The students received support from the faculty representative on the CLC, a University librarian who agreed that more and more students have been staying up later and studying longer, especially in groups.
The rectors immediately sprang to the defense of the entire institution of parietals. In dismissing the issues of gender relations and academic concerns, the rectors focused on the additional hour of work this would entail for hall staff and offered unlikely scenarios that might make midnight parietals seem more reasonable than 1 a.m. parietals.
When a vote was called, every student and faculty member voted in favor of the measure. Bill Kirk and the rectors voted against the measure.
Students will not be surprised at the administration's insistence on the status quo. A student resolution with faculty support still requires at least one administrator or rector to support the measure for the required two-thirds vote necessary for the resolution to pass. The administrators and rectors usually vote as a block, as in this case, effectively muting the voice of 80 percent of the student body.
Here are some of the arguments provided by the administrators and rectors on why they voted the way they did:
1. In defense of parietals, one rector offered gender stereotypes, asserting that female students needed time to do their hair, nails and make-up before being seen by members of the opposite sex. He argued that parietals afforded the women of Notre Dame this opportunity.
2. One rectress questioned the statistics presented, refusing to believe that 80 percent of the student body favored the measure and 15 percent opposed it. She implied the numbers were generated through polling improprieties, despite earlier explanation that a social psychologist experienced in obtaining unbiased, accurate samples had advised the student task force.
3. One rector argued that parietals are actually a form of freedom. What freedom? Successful community living can only be accomplished through trust and communication, values that cannot be instilled through rules that obviate the need for both.
4. The rectors repeatedly confused the idea of parietals with the practice of enforcing quiet hours. The rectors ignored incidences, such as the Friday night before the MCATs, study days and finals week where quiet hours are maintained without the institution of parietals. The respect student have for each other is more than sufficient to allow people to fall asleep at their desired time.
Never have we been more disappointed in and felt more ignored and marginalized by the University. When the response to a semester's worth of hard work and the overwhelming outcry of the student body is the refusal to truly discuss the issue, how can students not be disgusted?
As long as University policy is beyond reproach, students will forever be denied the opportunity to develop into "educated, skilled and free human beings" with "disciplined habits of mind, body and spirit."
Tonight there will be a campus-wide camp-out on South Quad, starting at 10 p.m., in protest of parietals and the administration's lack of respect for the voice of the student body. No alcohol, no tents. Bring lots of friends.
Kevin Berchou, Paul Graham, Mike Pfaff,
Mike Snow and Seth Whetzel
Notre Dame undergraduates
April 27, 2001
All Viewpoint Stories for Monday, April 30, 2001
