The Lawrence University Community Council (LUCC) Group Housing Committee has released its decisions about which clubs will occupy the group housing provided by Lawrence in the Colman and Sage Hall lofts, the quad, the small houses on East Boldt Way and other similar living arrangements. On Wednesday, April 26, students who were affected by the decision had the opportunity to voice concerns at LUCC General Council, although changes cannot be made at General Council and have to take place through an appeals process which goes through the department of Residential Education and Housing (ResEd).
In the housing process, groups applying submit answers to questions raised by members of the committee and can do a supplemental presentation, which the members are required to grade on a rubric. The higher the score, the more preference the group gets in their housing selection. The Group Housing Committee is made up of LUCC members and non-LUCC members who are not residents of group housing or living in group housing the following year, to avoid bias. Then, class representatives get to vote to approve or reject the decision, and if it is rejected, it is sent back to the committee. On Wednesday, April 26, the class representatives voted to approve the decision.
The groups that were awarded group housing were Students of Lawrence (SOL) Studios, Art House, Gaming House, Baking and Cooking Club (BACC), Sustainable Lawrence University Garden (SLUG), Sigma Alpha Iota, Recess Club, and the fraternities Sigma Phi Epsilon (SigEp), Beta Theta Pi (Beta) and Delta Tau Delta (Delt). The Afro-Caribbean Union (ACU) and the music and artistic collective VOODIS applied for but were not granted group housing.
Due to a misunderstanding over the order of preferred rankings in the application process, SOL studios ended up initially getting the house they least preferred. First-year Gilliana Hope, one of the co-presidents of SOL Studios, said that the appeals process was successful and that they will occupy the house they most preferred.
Two members of VOODIS attended the April 26 meeting to voice similar concerns regarding the ranking process. According to them, they scored highest on their application last year and lowest this year, despite submitting the same application and an updated presentation detailing the ways in which they accomplished what they had set out to do last year. VOODIS members raised concerns about potential biases influencing the Group Housing Committee’s decision to rank them lower than the groups that failed to even show up to their presentation. LUCC members stated that scores were graded by the rubric strictly on the application and the presentation, with the presentation being supplemental to the application. It was also clarified that no one with a relationship to the group housing process was permitted to serve on the committee. Junior Class Representative Rowan Tipping, who served on the committee, objected verbally to the accusation that the process was biased.
Junior Jonah Trudeau, treasurer of VOODIS, said he was disappointed and confused by the decision. He said that VOODIS is an active organization on campus, and that their application reflected that. He added that VOODIS is a space where artistically talented students who practice a variety of art forms can collaborate outside of the Conservatory and Wriston and is unhappy that Lawrence is losing this space. Trudeau doesn’t feel that he was given adequate reasoning about why the decision was denied, and feels that campus is biased against VOODIS, citing the fact that their application to perform at LUAroo was denied by the Band Booking Committee.
Director of Residential Education and Housing Steph Knoppa confirmed that VOODIS’s appeal was denied. She said that since there were 12 groups with only 10 available spaces, two groups were going to be denied a house.
“The appeal would have to put forth a compelling argument which would show that the group’s consideration was materially disadvantaged due to verifiable or documented instances of misconduct, such as in cases of discrimination or procedural inconsistency,” Knoppa said.
Trudeau disagreed that the decision was not biased and feels that there is a clear bias against VOODIS at Lawrence.
“The appeals process was also disappointing […] not being able to call out specific names of people that were biased [hampered our ability to make our appeal],” Trudeau said.
Members of the Group Housing Committee are not allowed to speak about the appeals process or the reasons groups were denied or approved outside of the committee.