The source that I am introducing in this blog post is a newspaper article from The Eau Claire Leader Telegram from April 14, 1967 where UW- Eau Claire students held a protest against the student housing code for the next school year. I selected this source because of its relevance in students wanting to live off campus but the school code was not allowing off-campus living to happen. This article was able to identify change in the off campus living situations of college students and the need for change to allow students to live off campus.
In the rhetorical context concerning this article the article uses a visual rhetoric to show a large group of students holding signs and protesting. This usage of visual rhetoric backs up his claim that a student body was protesting on campus about the university housing code in which then builds to his ethos as an accurate reporter. He also uses rhetorical distance in order to establish a non-intimate relationship with his reader, which further builds up his ethos as a non-bias reporter, who reports on facts alone and not feelings.
In this article approximately “200 Eau Claire State University students gathered in front of Schofield Hall Thursday afternoon to protest the proposed student housing code for the next school year” (p. 3). These students were protesting the fact that for the fall of 1967 the code would “require all students, with the exception of seniors or those of age, to live in University dormitories”, however as indicated by the Housing code “it excludes married students and those living at home” (p. 3). The reasoning behind the new code was because of the fact that enough housing would be available to students up to their junior level due to the shortage of students attending the university in the fall. Dr. Haas, president of the University in 1967, was also at this rally and represented the universities administration. His statements to the Leader Telegram indicated that the new housing code was being enacted due to “the simple fact that the dormitories were built with borrowed funds and we have to fill the dormitories to pay for them” (p. 3). The main purpose of this rally was to inform the general student population about the student housing code changes that would be taking place and to also have the administration to speak as well.
In this article it is clear that the student body is upset at the fact that University Housing will not allow students to live off-campus. In response to this new code students protested, spoke out against the new code, and urged other students to boycott. These responses clearly indicate resentment towards the housing code. I believe that this article is accurately portraying how students would respond since they as young adults could not chose to live where they saw fit. I personally would be upset if I didn’t have to the right to decide on where to live. The reasoning behind this protest and rally was to engage and to inform the student body about the changes to the Housing Code.
In understanding how the shift from on campus to off campus housing gradually took place this article shows that during 1967 resentment towards the code showed an affirmative push for students wanting to move off-campus. It indicates by the students actions of forming protests against the housing code that students wanted more freedoms and more choices to where they chose to live. This article provides essential material in understanding the shift. This article indicates that the general student body wanted a change to the housing regulations for living on campus and where so adamant about it that they protested and encouraged others to even boycotts the school entirely. By establishing a year in mind of 1967 and understanding that the students wanted the university to allow more off campus living, allows me to better pinpoint the time era in which off campus living was allowed for most of the student body. Although this article indicates that certain changes were in the process of allowing more off-campus living, there is still yet unanswered question concerning did student involvement change the administrations ideas about off campus living. I would like to from this point search for information regarding off campus living from 1967 to 1990. I believe that in this general time frame I would be able to find a more precise point in time were the administration changed the policy on living on campus and in doing so allowed for an open free market of college housing.
So far in this research having started in 2013 and working my way back I have discovered that in 2013 that on campus housing required “freshman and sophomores” to live on campus while in 1967 it required those who were not 21, seniors, married or living at home to live on campus. In the time frame at least from what the article indicates there was progress in housing regulations allowing more students to live off campus. Overall, I believe at this point in my research a large student body was upset at living on campus and having to follow rules and regulations. These individuals wanted more freedom and more choice in how they wanted to live there life, I mean who doesn’t, I sure do. In order to have these freedoms students gathered and protested the propose code at least voicing their opinion that the students weren’t happy and a change need to be made. The research, however, indicates that in 46 years changes were made concerning off campus living and 1967 could be the dawn of change to students living off campus.
I wonder if why so many students want to move off campus for there freshman year is because of the problems that the university had with housing in dorms and restricting them to stay on campus until they were 21 or married. With all the problems they had in the past with restricting the students I think that maybe why they don’t make students stay in the dorms for the first two years like many other universities across the country.