After arriving at Queen’s from Oxford as a new lecturer in 1955, Ronald Watts—who would later become the 15th principal—assumed a post as a don in the newly built McNeill House. From its very beginning, residences at Queen’s were envisioned as an integral element of students’ composite and holistic education.
Residences were never intended to be segregated from academics, but to form a bridge for students—especially for entering students—into the Queen’s community. Residence living would inspire Watts’ first scholarly publication and forge his legendary understanding of Queen’s students.
Residences have since become increasingly removed from the academic environment and mission of Queen’s. What was once a unit with academic leadership now exists as an ancillary service, managed by an administration that is often perceived by students as authoritarian and disconnected from academic life and the broader learning environment of the University. Where once faculty were directly involved in mentoring residential life, residences at Queen’s are now overseen by the Associate Dean, who is not a faculty member.
The oft-quoted high satisfaction rates for residence have little to do with residence administration and facilities, and more to do with the students who live there. In last year’s survey, we stood above comparable institutions in students’ satisfaction with residences for meeting other people, living cooperatively and fellow residents’ concern for their academic success. But we notably underperformed in the categories of enforcing policies, flexibility of room changes, variety of food plan options, value of the meal plan and the overall value of the residence experience, comparing cost to quality.
Students’ warm and enjoyable experiences are due to the diligence, empathy and skill with which dons and other student-staff invest in creating a close-knit community within residence. Having been a don myself, I have rarely encountered such devoted and caring individuals who deal so compassionately with the most intimate trials, persevering within the poorly supportive bureaucracy of Residence Life (ResLife). It is dons who nurture critical links for residents with the broader learning environment.
Yet the frontline perspectives and opinions of dons are marginalized within ResLife decisions. As dons lack any direct and formal representation, their voices are subordinated beneath the administrative hierarchy. The overcrowding of residences means many dons have now found themselves in single rooms, and without adequate space to counsel residents and host drop-ins. Dons have cited this as compromising their ability to serve their residents but were more concerned with the lack of consultation by ResLife through which the reduced space was imposed.
And with the onus on dons to report alcohol-related violations, they have been placed in a dangerous dichotomy where they must remain blind to events behind closed doors or risk their relationships with residents.
Dons recognize that current alcohol policies drive drinking further underground.
Also ignored is the financial accessibility of the residence experience, possibly compromised by ever-burgeoning residence fees. Despite assurances by ResLife administration that accessibility would be closely tracked, no direct data collection has been undertaken to assess whether students are dissuaded from residences or Queen’s by increasingly prohibitive costs. As residence fees increase, they sap our student aid system, inhibiting support of students’ tuition costs. And students consistently ponder how Queen’s residence fees are among the highest in the country, outranked only by schools in cities with vastly higher costs of living.
If the bloated and costly ResLife bureaucracy is not adequately supporting frontline staff and residents, perhaps that bears increased scrutiny. At central issue is the character of decision-making in residences governance—especially in regard to its faltering collegial character and lack of scholarly leadership. We are a university, fundamentally an academic institution concerned with the creation and dissemination of knowledge for a public purpose. If our residences are to be core rather than ancillary to this mission, they must have administrative leadership who take a pedagogical rather than managerial approach and are capable of articulating a scholarly vision. Residences must be honestly—not merely nominally—governed in a manner that equitably includes all stakeholders. If we are truly committed to democratic decision-making, residence cannot function in a hierarchical manner that subordinates critical stakeholders.
Residences were initially created as scholarly environments, but beyond four faculty members on four theme floors, the only academic links are those generated through the initiative of dons and student staff. There is no evident system-wide vision to involve Queen’s faculty in critical academic mentorship within the residence system. At our Ivy League cousins and our McGill rival, this is standard. Why are we not even striving for those practices here?
As our university begins discussing its vision, ResLife—and especially the first-year experience—must be at the core of that vision. We must consider ResLife and incorporate residence administration back into the university mission—not managing it as an ancillary operation, but integrating it as a very cornerstone of a Queen’s education. We must remember that residence is more than just a place to live.
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.