by Stephen V. Henninger
The strategy, practice, and policies behind assigning students to their residence hall rooms have always been slightly nebulous. A little bit art, a little bit science. With more research available on student outcomes and the role of housing, however, when it comes to designing housing selection processes, being just “good enough” is no longer sufficient. Instead, housing officers increasingly incorporate equity concerns into the process as they examine factors such as who lives with whom, where they live, and who cannot live with whom. This certainly will entail additional work, but it is work that is essential to ensuring that campuses best provide all students an opportunity to succeed.
Incorporating equity and inclusion into the work of campus housing professionals is not new, even if a definition is not always easy to pinpoint. A search of several different writers and institutions for a workable definition produced a wide-ranging interpretation of what the word means. One that felt particularly applicable to campus housing is Steven Mintz's definition in his article “How to Stand Up for Equity in Higher Education.” He writes, “Equity today implies much more than equal opportunity; it entails equality of resources, ideas, respect, and outcomes. In education, equity involves acknowledging differences, then taking steps to bring all students to success.” This definition is especially useful because it interprets equity in contextual terms; equity will look different from campus to campus.
Consider the situation at the University of Utah. Recent years have shown the campus experiencing growing enrollment and it maintains ambitious target goals. Currently, the housing department has more than 5,000 beds for first-year, upper-division, and a smattering of graduate students. As is the case around most of the United States, the surrounding Salt Lake Valley housing market is in high demand, which has increased the need and desire for on-campus housing. What has historically been a commuter campus is quickly becoming a residential one, driven in part by large out-of-state enrollment and major shifts in institutional priorities. The university does not require students to live on campus but houses primarily first-year students.
In addition to these demands, the University of Utah housing department has worked to increase equity and remove barriers in their assignment processes. These efforts have focused on two main issues: improving gender-inclusive options and incorporating randomization. To utilize gender-inclusive housing used to require an additional effort on the part of students. They were required to contact a member of the housing staff to talk through their housing options, and then, if approved, they would be hand-placed in a room that best met their needs. Under their new processes, Utah now allows students to simply choose from three housing options: rooms for males, rooms for females, or rooms that are gender-inclusive. During the process of reserving a room, students see only those that match their selected option, which removes the need for someone to disclose their gender identity and instead asks them to share the room they want with no barriers to that selection. While the total campus population of students in gender-inclusive housing has not fluctuated much since 2019 (only growing approximately 3%), the student feedback has been immensely positive.
When done successfully, equity-centered thinking, collaboration, flexibility, empathy, and long-term strategic thinking can all work together to set students up for success at the college or university and beyond.
Further, the selection order for housing options now has been completely randomized. All students who complete the application by the deadline are considered equally. This also provides those who decide to attend the university later in the application cycle an equal chance of obtaining housing on campus. The University of Utah has been doing this for more than five years and has seen a significant increase in the number of current and incoming students (and their parents) who have some understanding of the housing selection process.
On the other side of the country, Radford University in Virginia has approximately 2,600 beds, a two-year live-on requirement, and a large population of first-generation students. Given the large population of first-generation students with their particular needs, coupled with retention challenges, Radford has dedicated a considerable amount of attention to communicating with students about the housing assignment process. Andrew Price, associate director of housing operations, says that much of his work in the last year has been focused on redesigning processes from scratch and that communicating clearly and intentionally has yielded a better overall process. Price describes creating a communication plan that is specific to a particular population, depending on the process. Instead of one general email, he works to design as many communication messages as needed to give students accurate and specific instructions. For example, Price and his team send very specific instructions to students during the housing application process to indicate whether they need to apply for the second part of the two-year live-on requirement and what their options are should they want to continue living on campus for a third or fourth year. This has created more work on the front end for his staff but ultimately clarified the housing application process.
This promotes equity by removing confusion so that students don’t feel they’re missing out on an opportunity and offers specific steps to take next, allowing students to know exactly what is expected of them. While Radford has implemented this communication method for only one cycle, they have seen less confusion about the application process and options.
While these challenges and situations are different, they show how similar processes can be applied to find equitable solutions. Rachel Aho, director of housing at the University of Utah, explains that equity in campus housing involves asking the right questions: “What resources do students need, how do students access our resources, and what opportunities do they need to fully take advantage of the campus housing experience?” Once these questions are asked and examined, work can begin to enhance equity.
One nearly universal recommendation is to design with equity in mind. When campuses are designing a process, they must think critically about how barriers can be removed for students. In addition, collaboration across the campus community and seeking advice from a variety of experts across campus – including students – will provide feedback on how existing processes do (and don't) work for them and what could be better.
Policymakers must also be flexible. Designing a perfectly equitable process in the first attempt is unlikely, so they should be ready for shortcomings and make sure there is a system to help students navigate that process. But if they lead with empathy by focusing less on the actual process and more on the student who will be affected and consider the long-term implications of making incremental changes year by year, then they can make strides toward the ever-evolving target of equity. As students change, so do the measures of success. When done successfully, equity-centered thinking, collaboration, flexibility, empathy, and long-term strategic thinking can all work together to set students up for success at the college or university and beyond.
Stephen V. Henninger is the associate director of residential education at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.