When we reflect on our time at Yale, we mean Yale College, even though, for example, Akhil has been at the Law School for four decades. Generations of Yalies — our audience — see themselves united by, to paraphrase de Gaulle, “a certain idea of Yale.” One can give form and place to that idea by entering the residential colleges. Or so Yale claims; the colleges are “the cornerstone of Yale College’s mission … Each community contained within the fourteen residential colleges represents Yale in microcosm, offering … a space of civic and moral responsibility. The very texture of daily life in the undergraduate community is fundamental to the university’s educational mission.” We agree.
We were thus alarmed to read recently in the News of astounding rates of students residing off-campus. The growth in this phenomenon is not new, but it escalated dramatically in the wake of COVID-19 and has remained at unheard of levels. We have confirmed in conversations with administrators that this year, 45 percent of juniors and 40 percent of seniors live outside the campus. What was previously disturbing has become nearly existential for the concept of the Colleges. True, when one visits a College, there is not a barren wasteland; but there appears to be wide agreement that the fabric of life in the College is undermined by not only the missing many, but by the fact of an exodus. To live outside the Colleges is a rejection of the College community; an abrogation, or at least a denial, of that “civic and moral responsibility.”
Put another way, we see the Colleges as akin to auto insurance; unless nearly everyone participates in the system, it fails. For one thing, Yale’s vaunted diversity, seen by so many as fundamental to Yale’s character and experience, clearly suffers when students withdraw from the body in order to room with people like them, perhaps from several Colleges — a frequently cited cause for taking this step. The ability of the Colleges to provide that diversity is undermined when groups self-exclude. Students who move are almost by definition among the more independent; this reduces the pool, and perhaps the quality, of likely College leadership and mentors. Most fundamentally, when one’s course through Yale is not seen from the beginning as running through the Colleges, the College is less able to function as that “cornerstone.” One is less likely to aspire to a leadership position in the College; to learn its history and traditions and seek to join them; to make a mark on the place. Without a pervasive commitment from the whole community, the College is reduced to the mere facts of its physical plant, stripped of the value it can offer as an institution.
We see this devaluing of the Colleges’ ineffable qualities in the reasons students proffer in surveys and informal interviews. The exiting students want their own kitchen; air conditioning; laundry in their room; a single bedroom. They express dissatisfaction with the meal plan offerings. This collection of criteria leaves us frankly unimpressed. When balanced against duty to the community, they seem almost trivial.
We expected this inquiry to give voice to two issues that might be harder to resolve: the annexing of on-campus students and the inability of the University to serve alcohol on campus. The latter was, happily, simply not named with any frequency; as to annexing, what was formerly an issue now sees only about 60 students campus-wide living in annex housing — and in fact there is ample non-annex housing available for them in the colleges. So we are left with what seems like a solvable problem.
One has to ask why, in the face of so little friction, the problem persists, even worsens. We see this as, first, the result of a failure to make clear the nature and responsibility of citizenship in Yale College, of what it means to be part of this community, including the duty we owe each other. Second, there has been a failure of administration. There is no grand strategy, if you will, of fortifying the Colleges. The recent consolidation of certain housing functions in the Yale Housing Office has not been accompanied by any aligning of incentives and messaging. For example, Yale makes it easier than virtually any of its peer institutions to live off campus; there are no financial penalties for registering for room draw and then withdrawing; there is a six-week period of essentially costless shopping around; the timing for declaring your housing intent is far later at Yale than elsewhere.
This sends the clear message that Yale is prioritizing individual student housing choice over the health of the residential college system. But the numbers make it clear: Yale cannot have it both ways. And we say that given the choice, Yale should make good on its bold claims and enable the Colleges restoration to their proper place as one of the glories of Yale.
To do this, the current mandate that students live on campus for two years should be extended. One might debate whether a three or four-year requirement would be best, but surely if Yale can require two years, they can require more. In any event, it should be made clear to applying students that a Yale College education means living in the residential colleges. The “cornerstone” requires “civic … responsibility” and you commit to that when you select Yale. This sort of community may not be for everyone; if you do not believe it is for you, then Yale is not for you. One chooses Columbia, for example, knowing that the Core Curriculum awaits and that decision is made when matriculating. Once made, it becomes a matter of making that commitment work for you. Yale would then be populated by those who have chosen to live in this community, and who therefore have chosen to build it.
The administration, for its part, will need to recognize those forces that legitimately should be adjusted. Currently, meal plans are inexcusably limited in choice and should not demand that students purchase meals they will not consume. Every penny of the increased housing revenue this plan would produce should be poured back into enhancing College life. It might seem counter-intuitive that bringing 20 percent of the student body back to campus would not create a housing shortage, but Yale authorities have told us that there is sufficient housing stock in the Colleges to support this. To the degree that it falls short of this assurance, Yale must be prepared to expend the resources required, in a timely manner. This is too important to do otherwise.
This issue has been discussed on the margins and even in the pages of the News for a number of years, but the situation has clearly worsened dramatically. Failure to take the dramatic action we propose, to instead continue this drift towards an ever-more fragmented Yale, will result in a decrepit Residential College system and the loss of something wonderful, something that Yale did better than anyone else, and in so doing, defined itself. However, with our proposal, the nature of Residential College life will reshape to support the commitment Yale students and Yale as a whole, reaffirms. In ways large and small we will be a better Yale for it.
AKHIL REED AMAR is a Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science. Professor Amar graduated from Yale College in 1980, and from Yale Law School in 1984. Contact him at akhil.amar@yale.edu.
ANDREW LIPKA is the President of EverScholar, a nonprofit that conducts immersive learning programs, originally for Yale alumni, and now for all. Dr. Lipka graduated from Yale College in 1978, and from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in 1982. He is a fellow of Jonathan Edwards College. Contact him at andrew.lipka@gmail.com.
Akhil and Andy co-host the weekly podcast, Amarica’s Constitution. Their column,“Yale Friends for Life,” runs frequently and discusses all things Yale — its successes, shortcomings and mission — from the perspective of two alumni who love our small college.