PAMELA WRIDT

In July of 2002, the Graduate Center signed a two-year lease on North Hall, a new unit of student housing. Consisting of 18 apartments of four or five rooms each in a recently renovated seven-story building in central Harlem, North Hall was intended as a temporary residence for international and new non-New York resident students. At its best, GC-sponsored student housing is a socially meaningful way to meet fellow students and a secure method for obtaining housing during ones first year in New York City. At its worst, GC-sponsored housing is a bureaucratic nightmare for students who placed their trust in the University to provide safe, affordable student housing.

Unfortunately, the worst-case scenario has prevailed. North Hall is the third in a series of inadequate housing facilities leased to graduate students since I began attending the Graduate Center in 1999. As graduate students we demand improved housing in keeping with the needs of scholarly pursuits. Namely, we request that the Administration re-locate student housing to a building that has an adequate infrastructure (e.g., consistent hot water and heat, wired with Internet cables) in a neighborhood that is safe and convenient (this does not necessarily mean Manhattan). To ensure that our priorities as students are addressed, we also request a genuine role in the process of locating a new GC-sponsored

residence.

As Student Liaison, I was responsible for helping students resolve problems they encountered during their stay in North Hall. This included contacting both the building superintendent and the Director of Residence Life about issues related to the apartments.

Over the course of the 2002-2003 academic year, many students residing in North Hall informed me of problems with their apartments, the building and the neighborhood. These ranged from minor issues to housing disasters. Complaints included water leakages, electrical outages and fires, heating problems and safety concerns regarding the building and the neighborhood. Many of these problems were not adequately addressed by the Office of Residence Life over the course of the year. As a result, students organized themselves to directly confront the Administration at various levels throughout the year.

For example, students organized a meeting in North Hall with the Administration to address the lack of stoves (the building had no gas service for a month) and other problems that arose because many apartments were not completely renovated at the time of move-in. Students continued to experience problems and wrote letters to the Administration in addition to calling and emailing the appropriate authorities. Toward the end of the year, I asked the Doctoral Student Council to get involved, and much to my dismay, nothing materialized. Finally, a group of students wrote a letter to the President outlining the problems with student housing.

The letter to the President was sent on August 18, 2003, and copies were mailed to the Vice President of Student Affairs, the Doctoral Student Councils Student Affairs Committee, and to the 16 students who signed the letter. Instead of responding directly to the students (most of whom had since moved out of North Hall), the Administration sent a response to the current residents of North Hall on October 9, 2003. The time it took the Administration to respond and the manner in which they did so is indicative of the problems student face in GC-sponsored student housing. For example, those students who moved out of North Hall in mid-August were informed that their $100 security deposit was available at the Bursars Office only on the late date of October 31, 2003.

To their credit, when the Administration finally did take action, they made much-needed improvements in the management of the building and their offices responsiveness, as well as addressing some of the key quality of life issues (e.g., hot water, electricity and doormen who do not sell drugs). For instance, the university involved their attorney in lobbying the landlord for essential improvements in the infrastructure and general security of the building. The Administration also hired a new Coordinator of Residence Life, although the position is only part-time, given that the Coordinator will also work in the capacity of Assistant Director of Admissions. Current residents of North Hall have also informed me that responsible parties are now responding to emails and inquiries about problems or suggestions related to student housing.

All of this is encouraging, but to my knowledge, the Administration has not engaged students in a dialogue about their plans for a new student residence. In a letter addressed to President Horowitz, Vice President of Student Affairs Matthew Schoengood writes that, as for new student housing, we have been pursuing new opportunities. Currently the most prominent of these is Battery Park City, about which I have informed the DSC co-chairs. Clearly, informing the DSC about the universitys intention is not the same as involving them in a dialogue about a potential new site for student housing.

Students have much to contribute in the process of locating new housing. As our letter to the President suggested, we would like to participate in a committee that investigates potential new sites and neighborhoods. Student participation will encourage the university to be reflective and critical of its decisions regarding what amenities make for desirable student living, most crucially on the question of location.

For instance, had students been involved in the decision to locate housing in Harlem, I doubt North Hall would have been selected. Many students told me that they were uncomfortable with being placed in the role of gentry in a neighborhood undergoing rapid urban change that could displace current residents. Given the economic and racially sensitive nature of gentrification in Harlem, the university should have thought more about its own role in this process. Does the Graduate Center, a university that is known for its liberal and socially conscious philosophies, want to represent itself this way to New York City residents?

The current new opportunity for student housing in Battery Park is equally problematic, but for different reasons. According to journalist Juan Gonzalezs new book, Fallout, the collapse of the World Trade Center released numerous toxins in the air in the form of dust, which settled in all the buildings in the immediate area. The apartments of Battery Park City are reported to be among the most contaminated, and therefore, many of the former residents have moved elsewhere. As a way of luring new residents, the City of New York is offering incentives such as very low rent to potential newcomers. A graduate student who is knowledgeable about the topic informed the Office of Student Affairs about this environmental problem, which has the potential to cause cancer and other related health problems. In response to her email, the Vice President of Student Affairs replied, Please be advised that we are doing our due diligence to make sure that Battery Park City is environmentally safe as we proceed with our project.

The conditions of student housing and the manner in which the university has proceeded in the past leads me to doubt that the process is in fact being handled appropriately. Increased channels of communication between the Administration and students on this issue would be a step in the right direction toward correcting the situation and ensuring that the process is at least collaborative. While conditions have improved markedly, the GC needs to continue its dialogue with students by genuinely involving them in the process not only in locating a new residence, but in maintaining a quality of life conducive to the pursuit of knowledge.