Next year’s Housing Contract includes a measure that bans all pets and incurs a fee of 100 dollars per sighting. Only fish in tanks no larger than 10 gallons are exempt from the rule. All University students must agree to the contract in order to participate in General Room Selection.
“We had some concerns way back in September and October, when we were meeting to talk about pet policy, because of allergies, noise, disease and the potential for an escaped pet,” said Director of Residential Life Fran Koerting, who worked with Physical Plant and the Undergraduate Residential Life Committee (URLC) on the changes. “There was no specific event here that precipitated [this ban]. Many of us have concerns about having small, caged pets.”
A growing number of students have been disappointed with the way that the new pet policy was communicated to them. According to Koerting, the decision was only recently made and ResLife planned to inform students before room selection and to distribute handouts on selection nights.
“The timing for this decision is awkward,” Koerting said. “It was brought before the URLC on Tuesday, and the contract had to go up on the [Room Selection] website on Monday. We thought we still had time to let students know about this. In the e-mail we specifically mentioned to read the housing contract and community standards closely because there were changes.”
Holly Wood ’08 feels deceived by the lack of communication. She has started a petition in protest of the new ban, and as of Thursday evening, the petition had 114 signatures.
“I think it’s a huge failure of the WSA, URLC, and ResLife to not bring this up for debate,” she said. “This is an issue to a lot of students, and they kept it hidden until students figured it out.”
According to URLC Co-Chair Rafael Medrano ’06, his committee is open to hearing from students about the policy change. The URLC is a group comprised of a number of WSA members and ResLife staff.
“I will be working with students who want to voice their concerns about the pet policy change,” Medrano said. “At the time we received a valid reason as to why to change the policy, and did not see it fit to survey the entire campus as we are doing with the furnishing of woodframe houses.”
Wood does not believe that the administration is offering sustainable solutions for current pet-owning students. She owns a hedgehog, an animal that is illegal in her home state of Pennsylvania, making it more difficult to find an appropriate home for him. Additionally, she thinks that those who created the ban do not understand the amount of responsibility that having a pet entails.
“These pets are not toys,” she said. “We can’t just leave them in a box under our beds. They are living, breathing things that we take care of. They are part of our identities. It’s not like banning Foreman Grills or candles.”
Koerting stated that the new policy wasn’t instituted mid-year in order to give students time over the summer to find new living arrangements for pets. She also stressed that ResLife is always interested in hearing feedback from students, which is why the perspective of the URLC was included in ResLife’s decision-making.
Emily Palmer ’08 has an Angora rabbit, Duncan, who lives with her in Outhouse. According to Palmer, all of her housemates agreed to have the pet live in the house. Palmer doesn’t think she will be able to find an appropriate home for Duncan in the next six months.
“I’m annoyed that I heard about this through other students as opposed to from the administration,” Palmer said. “When they decided this was what they were going to do, they should have announced it, and sought our input. I don’t see why it’s ResLife’s business, but they own the building so I guess they make the rules.”
Other changes to the contract include an increase in fees for the damages done to residential units. Koerting stated that each year, there is over 80,000 dollars worth of damage done to rooms on campus. She hopes that the new fines will deter students from leaving their rooms in poor condition.