Running head: POLICY CRITIQUE 1

Policy Critique

Johnathon Shaw

UW-La Crosse
POLICY CRITIQUE 2

Kenyon College’s office of Residential Life has asked for an outside review and critique

to assist in reviewing their policies and procedures. Acting as a consultant, this will serve as a

critique of Kenyon’s Housing and Meal Plans terms and conditions for the 2020-2021 academic

year. The below image provides the details of section one, the housing requirement for all

Kenyon students.

The policy states that it is mandatory for all students enrolled at Kenyon College to live

in campus housing and enroll in a dining plan. It is very clear in its wording and states that

students seeking an exception to this must receive written permission from the Office of

Residential Life.

The Critique

My first critique of this policy is that it does not provide any guidance on how a student

might request an exemption from this policy. The policy states that the students must receive

written permission, but offers no guidance on how to attain that. The policy could also be

improved by listing certain categorical exemptions, such as students that live within a specified

distance from the university, have medical or accessibility needs, or have other obligations such

as family or work.

My second critique of this policy is ethical in nature. While the residential experience of

a student can positively impact their development over the course of their time in higher
POLICY CRITIQUE 3

education, it also increases the cost of attending the institution. This is an accessibility issue, as

students are forced to pay room and board, potentially increasing the loans and debt they are

required to take on. Secondly, this policy is not inclusive for non-traditional students who may be

older and have familial and work obligations. This policy forces students like these to request an

exemption, which may not be approved. The language of this policy is clearly directed at

traditional college students. This policy would benefit from more clear language regarding the

types of exemptions provided, and the process by which a student could request said exemptions.

The policy should include the procedure and timeline for such events. The policy should also be

addressed for concerns regarding equity and inclusion, as it assumes all students can afford to

pay the residential housing and meal plan fees. It is clear that Kenyon College does not consider

the needs of nontraditional students, and it is highly suggested that the College review these

polices for ethical considerations.

This policy also does not take into account potential health and safety concerns, such as

the ones brought up in the addendum that was provided to students regarding the covid-19

pandemic. I believe that the Americans with Disabilities act is relevant here, as some students

may be best served by allowing them to commute from a private residence.

The addendum reads as follows:

POLICY CRITIQUE 4

This addendum is poorly worded and opens the possibility for confusion and

misinterpretation. First off, by admitting that it is possible for it to be in a student’s best interests

to forego the residential experience, Kenyon admits that not all students are best served by the

housing mandate. For the reasons mentioned above (cost, accessibility, health concerns, ect),

there will be circumstances that continue past the pandemic and the year of 2021. This clause

seems to admit that students and their families can decide what is in the best interests of their

students, and Kenyon admits that the residential experience may not be what that student

decides.

Secondly, this policy uses specific wording regarding the student’s parent or legal

guardian. This excludes students who may be over the age of majority, lack familial support, or

are otherwise unable to live with their parents or guardians. For example, it also excludes

students who may be from out of state but could make reasonable accommodations for

themselves to commute to Kenyon. This policy excludes many types of students and overlooks

several different living situations.

Finally, the policy uses the term “reasonable driving distance.” This term is highly

subjective. Personally, having grown up in a rural area, the reviewer finds it perfectly reasonable
POLICY CRITIQUE 5

to drive an hour or more to work, shopping, or entertainment. Colleagues of mine from more

urban areas find an hour commute to be excessive. This policy leaves room for students to

challenge the ruling should they be denied the accomodation for having an unreasonable

commute.

The above policies would all be improve by more precise wording regarding the

distances that would be considered reasonable. I suggest that the distance be given in miles, such

as “students will be permitted an exemption to the housing policy should they be able to procure

housing within 70 miles from campus. Students whose address falls outside of this 70 mile range

can apply for an exemption with the Office of Residence Life. Exemptions are considered “may

issue” and will be issued on a case-by-case basis. Students with specific needs or concerns

should contact the Office of Residence Life to discuss specific accommodations.”

The reviewer understands Kenyon’s traditions and history as a residential college. The

residential experience has many positive outcomes for student development. However, it is

recommended that Kenyon reword its policies to be more inclusive to nontraditional students and

students who wish to live off campus for personal reasons.