Knowledge is Not Enough
Author: Abigail Chappell Deckert. Knowledge is Not Enough. We Need Dignity, Privacy, and Meaningful Community Living.
Many changes are coming to Bethel due to the new Bethel College Strategic Plan (SP) sent out at the beginning of the school year. In order for the student body to be excited about and welcome these changes, we need to meet the needs of our diverse student body. However, two recent announcements concerning student housing have significant consequences for student wellness at Bethel. First, an announcement to penalize students for living off campus by reducing their financial aid package. Second, an announcement that there will be no financial accommodations for the price of single rooms on campus. This negatively affects the students of Bethel College in many different ways. Those who seek housing accommodations are being forced to choose between their mental, physical, and financial well-being. I will be outlining how the new housing policies do not meet the goal of the new SP.
Details of the SP, “Knowledge is not enough”, can be found on the Bethel College website. SP section 1E is labeled “College Affordability.” Bethel is a four-year residential college, which means students are required to live on campus all four years, unless they meet the criteria for an exception. The exceptions to this policy include students living with their families, students who are married, single parents with children at home, or students with permission from the vice president of student life. The new housing policy penalizes students in these categories by decreasing their institutional financial aid by 25% if they live off campus. This policy places a consequence on students who live off campus because they cannot afford the cost of room and board at Bethel College. These students may be international, might be paying their way through college with limited or no support from parents, or might have exceptional financial need due to other circumstances. Now, students seeking more affordable options off campus are required to pay more, which does not align with SP 1E’s mission of college affordability.
Section 5D of the SP suggests that we need to “take steps towards a safer campus.” Limiting off-campus housing by reducing institutional aid does not make our campus safer. For example, it is no secret that sexual assault is rampant on college campuses. The reduction of aid directly targets assault victims or others who have had traumatic experiences on campus. They are now left to choose between paying extra to live off campus for their mental well-being or saving money by living on campus, where they may be reminded of their trauma on a daily basis. An alternative is not only letting people live off campus without financial penalty, but also expanding on-campus living options. Bethel has shockingly little and underwhelming housing options. If there are more on-campus options that work for students, students are less likely to seek off-campus solutions.
The SP (section 5) also states, “Redesign support services to meet the needs and expectations of diverse student populations.” These housing policies contradict the goals of this section. For example, Bethel has a scholarship specifically designed for first generation students. According to the Bethel College website, the full-tuition scholarship (this excludes the price of room and board) requires you to live on campus all four years. This puts first-generation students who have the need for a single room with no choice but to pay the extra fee. This may result in more debt, needing to work more jobs, or even dropping out. According to the Center for First-Generation Student Success, 1 in 3 college students are first generation nationally. Bethel seeks to serve first generation students by providing this full-tuition scholarship. But requiring students to live on campus, and limiting their options for housing may have dire consequences. According to UNC Chapel Hill research, Hispanic or Latino youth are the most likely to be first generation, followed by Black youth. And because the first-generation scholarship requires students to live on campus, the policy seemingly targets people on this scholarship, therefore targeting people of color with the need for single rooms. We do need to redesign support services to meet a diverse student body, just as the SP says, the problem is that the new housing policy is directly contradicting SP 5 by targeting people of color on campus who need a single room.
There are a plethora of different reasons a student may seek a single room, and most of those reasons relate to their dignity and wellness. In particular, students with mental health diagnoses such as ADHD, suicide ideation, depression, anxiety, OCD, or personality disorders may struggle with living in a room with someone else. There are also physical conditions that make this challenging, including particular mobility disabilities, vision or hearing impairments, or sleep impairments. Regardless of the reason, it is a highly personal subject. The form required to be granted a single room requires a provider (physician, therapist, psychiatrist, etc.) to list your specific diagnosis, the symptoms, and to check if the housing accommodations would be either “helpful” or “required/mandatory” for the student living on campus. This does two things. First, it requires the student to share highly personal information with the school. Second, it provides the opportunity for residence life to deny the request for a student’s accommodation if it does not fit their standards of severity. This should be a private decision made between a student and their healthcare provider. It does not need to be investigated by a residence life team who is not qualified to determine the severity of students’ needs for single-room accommodations. Having to verify your need for accommodation to the student life office in great detail does not, “meet the need and expectations of a diverse student body.” Instead, we need to support diverse students with dignity.
The SP sections I have referenced do not align with the new housing policies. These contradictions create distrust between the institution and students, and can cause damage to the Bethel community. When a student's needs are not met, they are unable to thrive and the consequences could be significant. Take for example a student who has severe anxiety and depression and needs to live alone in order to thrive. They are unable to afford the single room fee, so they are forced to have a roommate. This could impact their basic well-being (sleeping, eating, studying). They may start to fail their classes, may not show up to their sport or other extracurriculars, and might not be socializing in a healthy way. Multiply this example by 100 students (potentially) who may need single rooms. Now, one-fifth of the Bethel College student body isn’t functioning to their full capacity, contributing effectively to their community, and the risk of drop-out or transfer is higher.
The rationale from Bethel College Administration for these housing changes is the following:
“There are lots of good reasons to live on campus, including having a full, vibrant and engaging college experience. It is difficult to do that when you don’t live here. Living on campus also ensures that you eat regularly, have hot/cold running water, electricity, internet access and laundry facilities. With all of these things handled, you are able to fully engage in academic work, social engagement, and athletic excellence.”
The above mentioned issues are positive for students. But, this email is yet again an example of Bethel Administration contradicting itself by having no mention of mental health or financial needs. Bethel only benefits by the new housing policies by gaining an extra $5,000 (depending on location) per student who lives alone. The lack of justifiable community-oriented explanation for the new housing policies leads to the following conclusion: This decision was made by the Administration with the short-sighted view of making more money, specifically penalizing people of color, without a holistic consideration of the consequences for students with housing accommodations.
The title of the Strategic Plan is “Knowledge is Not Enough.” People come to Bethel College to learn, grow, and live in community with others. If knowledge is not enough, then let’s lean into growth and community. Students deserve to have our needs met in order to grow and succeed in college. This means continuing to provide accommodations for students in all realms of life.