Not a moment too soon, the Department of Residence is considering proposals to change its Fresh Start program in an effort to attract more students to the residence halls.

Fresh Start was launched in 1999 to help young students transition from a rigid high school environment, with minimal responsibility, to a relatively unstructured college atmosphere. So goes the story, anyway. The central aim of Fresh Start was to provide a selling point to many parents who would be footing the bill for tuition, room and board. In other words, it was an economic project designed to hit a grand slam with customers.

Well, it backfired. The Fresh Start concept has become the institutional equivalent of overbearing and bad parenting. The DOR managed to overlook its direct customers: students. Although declining residence hall numbers and enthusiasm cannot solely be pinned on Fresh Start, its contribution cannot be ignored.

It is unfortunate, because the residence hall system has a lot to offer. Many of its positive aspects and features cannot be reproduced by off-campus housing. Although the DOR has its faults and deserves this criticism, the residence hall system is fundamentally a good one.

The DOR now has an opportunity to regain some of the respect it has lost in the past few years. It should learn from the mistake that brought us to today, and immediately discard any notion of authoritarian tricks that will end up further hurting both the DOR and residents. As an alternative, we concretely propose the following: Let the students democratically determine their own living conditions.

This is the one essential element in the creation of a residence system that will not only retain residents, but also provide an environment best suited for personal development and academic achievement. Given the large number of students in the residence halls, there are a variety of preferences with respect to overnight guests, co-ed living, alcohol, quiet hour times, etc. Conversely, the DOR owns a number of buildings and is thus able to provide the varied environments in which students would like to share living space.

By giving residents a right to self-determination in the context of residence policy, rather than giving prospective residents a list of canned options to choose from, the DOR will most likely secure full residence halls with students who want to be there.

The DOR should not underestimate the ability of students to reasonably plan their own environments when charged with the responsibility. And it should not again underestimate the backlash caused by failing to do so.