Inter-dorming Discussion Exposes Stu-Fac Constitution


Jerry Sheng ’20

Dr. Arthur Gibb, dean of community life, and Mrs. Heather Perrenoud, dean of residential life, address students last Monday.

Last Monday, more than 100 students and faculty came together for the Stu-Fac discussion about the new inter-dorm policy. The sheer number of students present surprised several faculty, who expected a lower turn-out. Mr. Joshua Hahn, assistant head of school, “This is a little bigger group than we anticipated for Stu-Fac today.” Caitlin Reilly ‘19, student body president, added, “The room was packed more than usual, and you could see that everyone wasn’t happy.”

The inter-dorm policy that was put in place during the summer provoked much concern to students during the first few weeks back on campus, forcing the administration to brainstorm solutions. School presidents Caitlin Reilly ’19 and Daniel Pai ’19 forwarded Mrs. Perrenoud’s email addressed to the school and class presidents, clarifying the new policy and the policy’s origins just a few days before students arrived on campus. Students had expressed outrage via a student petition in mid-August, however, the email left many students with more questions than answers.

Mr. Bradley, head of school, Dr. Droz, dean of students, Dr. Arthur Gibb, dean of community life, and Mrs. Heather Perrenoud, dean of residential life, organized the meeting to clarify the rationale behind the new inter-dorming policy (as outlined on page 18 of The Almanac). Within the course of an hour, students transitioned from being listeners to raising concerns. The Stu-Fac meeting was the first opportunity for students to hear and ask questions directly to the administration in a face-to-face setting. Although students had already strongly communicated their frustration during the open discussion on Wednesday, September 11, no administrators were present to hear or witness the student suggestions and concerns.

A disagreement arose at the Stu-Fac meeting when Pai addressed Mrs. Perrenoud’s statement that student representatives were consulted during the development of the policy. Pai claimed, “The Stu-Fac meeting we had about the dorm policies wasn’t really around inter-dorming policies necessarily, but rather around things like common rooms and games.”

Another disagreement, which received the most audible response with gasps and claps, emerged when Caitlin Reilly brought up the Stu-Fac Constitution and said, “After doing some digging in the Stu-Fac constitution, we came across the by-laws which essentially proposes that in the process of creating a new rule that will have an impact on Student Life that faculty present the idea to Stu-fac first for consideration. [It states that] Stu-fac will then have the chance to discuss the potential rule change. After discussions, Stu-Fac will write a student impact statement. A form will detail the student’s thoughts and opinions regarding the rule so that some changes or compromises might be made before the rule is adopted.”

However, after a back and forth between the school presidents and Dr. Gibb about the disregard to some rules in the Stu-Fac Constitution by students and faculty, Dr. Gibb concluded with “So we have a broken process all the way around, right, and that’s something that we together need to work on.”

While the conversations about proposed changes to the new policy between faculty and students continue, Dr. Gibb stated that he would discuss possible revisions to the policy with faculty and student leaders and present a revised policy within the next one to two weeks.

You may find a copy of the Stu-Fac Constitution, along with the The Stu-Fac Rule Creation CO-OP below: