Housing selection has once again reared its ugly head for the Kenyon public. When the flat housing rate was first announced, I felt some resentment for it, a disdain and contempt for the policy’s impact on my life. In an effort to make housing more equitable, it has driven up costs for everyone and taken away a reasonable budget option for students. But upon further reflection, I just can’t earnestly argue that flat-rate housing is anything but a rational implementation of the principles of a Kenyon education. 

My first instinct was that I wanted an Old Kenyon single. I wanted to live South and be tied to the heart of the campus. Of course, the most rational choice was a new, pretty, southern apartment; a Thomas or Winkler suite would do. But my preemptive strike on Apartment and Suite Housing disappointment or intra-apartment drama led me to settle for an Old K single, and I ascribed a noble justification for it, too. This was an economical and responsible choice. In the prior three-tiered housing system, I would pay about $2,000 less for my little single than I would for something with a full kitchen (that I probably wouldn’t use anyway).

Flat-rate housing took that away from me. I have no justification, no noble self-sacrifice, for my isolation. With all distinction in price stripped away, there was no rationalization I could offer for not making every effort toward a Thomas suite. My psyche was exposed, and I embarrassed myself in my continued desire for a cloistered lifestyle. Without the financial considerations for housing selection, all that was left for me was the plain truth that I wanted to isolate myself from the people around me.

I was forced to reconsider a core Kenyon principle: intentional community. You may have heard that term when you were applying for college, and probably not much since. It is a concept that former College President Sean Decatur and current President Julie Kornfeld have both endorsed as an important part of Kenyon as an institution — the concept that Kenyon makes a concerted effort to foster a community among students, faculty, staff and villagers and that there is a benefit to education among such a small group of people that you care about and care about you. Constructing equality among housing choices serves to further that; it takes away the justifications people like me use to separate ourselves from our greater society. In some ways, a flat rate forces engagement in that community.

It is also worth noting that, since financial aid has been based on a student paying for the cheapest housing option at a single price, this means students on financial aid aren’t punished for choosing better housing. There is no significant negative effect for students on financial aid.

When the College announced that room occupancies would be reduced, I was irate that the administration would give in to students’ hedonistic desire for single-occupancy rooms despite its purported commitment to forcing camaraderie. An intentional community isn’t always comfortable or individually preferable. If  I go for a single as a senior, it should be a harmful, irrational choice for me. I chose to attend Kenyon knowing it is heavily involved in the student body’s social life. Intentional community is a lofty goal, but crucial to the nature of the College.Tadhg Sahutske ’27 is a history major from Detroit. She can be reached at sahutske1@kenyon.edu.