By Philip J. Carver

As president of The Pope's Hill Neighborhood Association I was a participant in one of the recent collaborative meetings among the Cedar Grove Civic and the Columbia Savin Hill Civic Associations to discuss the proposed dorms at UMass/Boston and their effect on the Dorchester Community. The meetings themselves prompted some varying opinions regarding their purpose and I feel obligated to set the record straight.

First some points of clarification: UMass Boston officials were purposely not invited to attend, because this was essentially a neighborhood strategy meeting. UMass Boston has already made their points abundantly clear: they intend to build dormitories on the Harbor Campus. Chancellor Jo Ann Gora has been making the civic association rounds for some time now, outlining UMass's broadening mission, which included the decision to build dorms. As civic associations we decided to hold a residential informational meeting to discuss this decision and what exactly it means to US.

This meeting was not a place for point/counter-point repartee; rather it was a chance to hear the community's side. The face-to-face debate will undoubtedly happen in the near future. We, however, felt it best to examine the potential effects - adverse or otherwise - that dorms bring as a community before engaging the University in a debate.

With regard to the non-binding vote that was taken that evening, if this were your first introduction to the "Dorm Debate" then the vote would definitely have seemed out of place. However, since it was a meeting of three civic associations that are both well versed and deeply immersed in this issue the vote was as appropriate as it was symbolic. That vote delivered a resounding message to Chancellor Gora and the UMass Trustees alike that Dorchester would not be steamrolled. It is also important to note that most of those participating in the vote are members of civic associations that have already voted to oppose the dormitories prior to this collaborative meeting.

The long simmering debate finally came to a boil when the University of Massachusetts trustees recently earmarked $91.5 million to build dormitories at the UMass-Boston campus, estimating that construction would begin as early as summer 2003. The arguments, pro and con, on this issue are as varied as the individuals queried. Some opponents cite neighborhood encroachment and use the deconstruction of the Allston/Brighton neighborhoods as their rallying cry. Others say the dorms would only enhance the flavor of an already diverse University, thus allowing it to compete with other local institutions, like BC and BU. Still others feel disenfranchised by the lack of community input and the University's lack of process.

Then there are those who remain indifferent and feel that dorms would have no impact on their day-to-day lives. The one constant in this argument is the fact that the current mission of the University of Massachusetts has changed from the ethos on which the University was founded.

Dorm proponents argue that times change and the University's mission statement should be a fluid document that allows the institution the option to change as well, instead of clinging to a thirty-year-old document. But the document is the reason the University exists and to change that would destroy the essence of Boston's only public university. The parameters may change but the fact remains that the University of Massachusetts at Boston is not a private institution like BC or BU - it is a public institution funded by taxpayers. As such, UMass is more accountable to the people they serve and the surrounding community in which they reside.

The original Trustees were cognizant of the region's need for a University of higher learning as well as the need for neighborhood support. In its original mission statement the following policies were listed in order "(1) The primary mission of the University of Massachusetts at Boston is to provide high quality education opportunities to the residents of Boston and surrounding communities, particularly those whose opportunities have been limited by income or race. We recognize a special responsibility to provide maximum educational opportunity to residents of Dorchester, Columbia Point and South Boston". According to the 2000 Census the City of Boston boasts over 50% of its population as minority and has nearly 20% of its housing stock designated "affordable housing." So while the City grows more and more diverse and strives to be affordable the city's only public university vows to cap enrollment at 13,348 and take 2,000 of those seats away from residents of Boston and give them to out of state students. Where are those 2,000 displaced Boston area residents going to go to school? What are our assurances that once you get 2,000 beds you will not revisit us in six years for another 2,000 and displace even more residents? We can ask the residents around Boston College, which not so long ago was a commuter school, how quickly things can change.

The second policy is straight to the point and stands alone (2): "The University of Massachusetts at Boston will remain a commuter institution, with a strong commitment to encouraging the use of mass transit rather than automobiles".

A trip to the Harbor Campus will leave you wondering why would the school be interested in undertaking dormitories when the current facilities are in such disrepair. There is a parking garage so far beyond repair that it is closed indefinitely, a mezzanine that appears to worsen on a daily basis and a catwalk that leaks in the rain. UMass should undertake a concerted effort to repair the infrastructure and modernize the facilities that would go a lot further in stemming the school's retention problem than dorms would.

Another initiative that UMass should undertake is an intensive partnership with and the Boston Public Schools. This type of relationship may work to the University's benefit where they could help harvest the best and the brightest of the Boston Public Schools instead of lamenting the fact that they continually lose them to other institutions. UMass could, through mentor programs and teacher aide programs, create a feeder system to ensure their University is in the forefront of higher education choices for the Boston Public Schools.

The issue of neighborhood encroachment primarily affects Dorchester; however the abandonment of the mission statement even partially affects the entire city. The school was founded to "provide education opportunities to the residents of Boston." But residents do not need dorms - we need a recommitted university. We need a University that instead of overextending itself at our expense chooses to reinvest in itself. We need a university that makes a strenuous effort to provide a high quality, affordable education to the residents of greater Boston. We need to ensure that the City of Boston's only public university remains a vibrant viable tool for our children and generations to come.

(Philip J. Carver is a lifelong Dorchester resident, neighborhood activist and current President of the Pope's Hill Neighborhood Association.)