The new policy requiring freshmen to live on campus passed with a 5-2 vote in Tuesday’s Board of Regents meeting, despite opposition from students and some board members.
The controversial policy will go into effect starting fall 2018.
However, there will be exceptions to the new rule. Students who live within a 30-mile radius of main campus, and those who will incur undue financial hardship, have medical issues, are married, have children, or are over 20 years old by the start of term will be exempt.
Different facets of University life have various opinions on the new policy.
“The faculty senate see the living requirement for its positive aspects,” Pamela Pyle, Faculty Senate president, said. “I feel that the data suggesting improved academic performance and the promotion of a sense of community warranted the decision.”
Associated Students of UNM President Kyle Biederwolf, on the other hand, said that there are legitimate concerns from students.
As UNM prepares to break ground on renovations to Smith Plaza Johnson Gym -- among other capital projects -- he said it will be difficult for students who expect accessible amenities while living on campus.
“UNM is going through a $200 million transition across campus and this mandate would be an overstep,” Biederwolf said.
The policy change has been met with widespread disapproval on social media following the meeting, with many accusing the University of only having its sights set on the potential profit at the expense of many students.
“Unless they significantly drop the cost of a dorm which they won’t this will never work,” wrote one Facebook user.
Student Regent Ryan Berryman voted against the measure, in part because of the University’s economic climate and capital project development.
“It is a deterrent if Johnson is not ready when freshmen arrive,” he said. “A destination university happens organically, and we will continue to become one. It is not the University’s place to mandate where students live.”
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Students like the option to live on or off campus, and this is a major selling point for potential incoming freshman, Biederwolf said.
“We recognize that our campus is unique with a diverse population, and this makes it stronger,” he said. “It creates a lot of challenges. We don’t believe this is the best way to address them.”
Some regents express concern about how the measure will impact retention rates, which have fluctuated over the past three years.
Regent Thomas Clifford -- the other dissenting vote -- said he requested retention impact information a month ago, but Institutional Support Services did not provide it until Tuesday’s meeting.
“We can’t make use of the information now,” Clifford said. “I am disappointed about the staff input on this issue.”
Enrollment impact was addressed by student surveys, which indicate that 55 percent of students would still come to UNM if the measure passed, said Terry Babbitt, associate vice president of Enrollment Management.
“Parents would like it if we were to force their students to live on campus, from the incident that happened last year with off-campus freshmen,” he said.
Others see the requirement as beneficial to incoming freshmen, providing learning opportunities they might not get otherwise.
Wayne Sullivan, director of Residence Life and Student Housing, said the Residence Halls are more than just a place to sleep and study, as learning also occurs outside the classroom.
“We will continue to provide activities and programs to meet residents’ needs,” he said. “We strive to make the campus community more vibrant and active. These efforts will continue and be enhanced as more students live on campus.”
The goal is to not have anyone negatively impacted by the requirement, and to be very upfront with students about its effects, Babbitt said.
“There are options. If this isn’t the right fit for you, please keep looking to attend UNM,” he said.
Institutional Support Services wanted to implement the requirement as soon as fall 2017, but Regent Bradley Hosmer brought up timing and organizational concerns.
Chris Vallejos, associate vice president of institutional support services, said the main concern is to mitigate the impacts as best as possible.
“The impact will be the same no matter how long we delay the decision,” he said. “It will affect our prospective students, not the students we have now.”
Ultimately, the Regents agreed that the University will need more time to adjust to the changes, thus holding off on implementing the new policy until fall 2018.
“The extra time will give the campus community more opportunity to discuss the challenges and concerns with the requirement,” Babbitt said. “We should use this period to form groups to identify needed improvements to the residential environment. I am gratified by the thoughtful and civil conversations we have had with a large number of students, and am committed to using that engagement to improve this proposal.”
