McCardell Approves Community Council's House Recommendations

Author: Alyssa Thurston

President John McCardell approved the Community Council's recommendation to continue all academic interest houses without stipulations.
The academic and social houses at Middlebury College undergo an annual review by a six-member subcommittee of Community Council, officially known as the Subcommittee on Social and Academic Interest Houses. This year, staff representative Anya Puri, director of alumni and parent programs, and student representative Colin Morawski '03 co-chaired the committee, with the remaing four members chosen from students, faculty and staff. The purpose of the subcommittee, as outlined in its mission statement, is to "annually review the goals and purposes of each of the social houses and the academic interest houses." Through a review process that includes interviews with residential advisers and house residents, as well as statistical data and information from Public Safety and Facilities Management, the subcommittee members ensure that the social and academic houses are meeting these goals.
As to the review this year, Puri commented that the subcommittee found no problems with the current state of the academic houses. "We were comfortable with the information we had gotten from the houses and were happy to have them continue this year with no stipulations." Her support was echoed by Ben LaBolt '03, student co-chair of Community Council. He stated that the houses had all "made a strong showing this year. [Community Council's] only recommendation [to McCardell] was that the academic interest houses continue to do further outreach to the campus community to share their cultural experience and prime real estate with the rest of the campus."
Commenting on why he had not made any stipulations to Community Council's recommendations regarding the academic houses this year, McCardell praised the work of the subcommittee. "I think they did a good and thorough job in evaluating the houses, and I found their recommendations, as a result, very sound. When a job is done with such care, it is unwise, because it is unnecessary, to reverse or modify a recommendation."
Puri expressed her enthusiasm for the review process. Being on the house review subcommittee and interviewing students during the review process allowed her to "be exposed to their infectious enthusiasm for living in the academic houses. They provide such a great environment for students to so fully pursue their academic and personal passions, and to share these passions with others." She believes that because of these opportunities the academic houses "represent a dynamic part of the spirit of Middlebury and of a liberal arts education."
In the case of the nine academic houses on campus, this means evaluating whether or not they are satisfactorily pursuing their particular academic interests, as expressed in each houses' mission statement, through house activities and community events. Additional criteria includes whether or not each house is meeting occupancy needs, observing college policy and engaging in community outreach.
Members of the subcommittee also engage in conversation with the houses' faculty advisers and commons deans to further get an idea of how the houses are contributing to their commons and the community.
In addition to overseeing adherence to criteria, the subcommittee may make recommendations for updating each house's guidelines for students in the houses, and also may hear and respond to individual problems within the academic houses.
The two main review periods occur in the fall and in January, after which the subcommittee submits a proposal to Community Council. Based on this report, Community Council makes a recommendation to the president of the College, who has final say on the continuation or discontinuation of the houses based on the information provided in the final report.