For those who have set foot into the comparatively palatial Sophia Gordon Hall, the revelation that the Office of Residential Life and Learning (ORLL) strives for equality among its various dormitories may initially be a confounding one.
Indeed, incidences continue to demonstrate that older residential halls are clearly less luxurious, so to speak; just two weeks ago, select Carmichael Hall residents on the fifth floor faced the possibility of being relocated as a result of a leaky roof.
A careful consideration of the amenities at hand, however, show that dorms as disparate as Carmichael and Sophia Gordon have more essential similarities than differences.
While Sophia Gordon naturally reflects the hand of a more modern architect, other suite-style dormitories essentially offer their residents similar splendors.
When the decision was made that OneSource would service Sophia Gordon, the administration thus ensured that all suite-style dorms would receive similar cleaning.
Dean of Student Affairs Bruce Reitman claims that such decisions throughout the construction of Sophia Gordon were made with the intention of curbing dorm envy.
For instance, the administration ultimately opted out of the possible availability of year-round air conditioning in Sophia Gordon because the feature was not available to other on-campus students in other dormitories.
Yet the administration's concern for balanced living conditions across campus is not simply propelled by a sympathetic desire to treat all students equally. Students living in Sophia Gordon pay the same as do students in other single rooms throughout campus. According to Director of the ORLL Yolanda King, the cost differences between single rooms and double rooms remain the only two pricing options.
Those eager to engage in dorm envy must remember that the simplicity of two different dorm rates ensures economic diversity throughout all residential halls.
Much in the same way that the variety of academic buildings across campus reflects a University eager to embrace change, the current spectrum of dormitories, from old to new, offers unique insight into the school's overall evolution.
Any differences between newer residential halls and older ones are clearly reflections of the time periods in which they were built.
They are not indicative of a series of unfair and superficial decisions made by the administration to glam up dormitories in an effort to make more money. Meanwhile, neighboring schools such as Boston University (BU) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) allow students to segregate themselves according to how much money they are willing, and not willing to spend on a gamut of housing options.
The administration and the ORLL should be commended for increasing the availability of on-campus housing while at the same time ensuring that the economic diversity of the student body continues to enrich the overall academic and social experience.
Tufts students should be proud that those from low-income families can expect a similar quality of living as do those from wealthier backgrounds.
In fact, the University owes its students nothing less.
