It has been made clear by Vice President for Student and Academic Services Susan Murphy ’73 that program houses are not going anywhere in the near future. With that in mind, it is time to turn the discussion away from a debate about whether or not the program houses should exist, and refocus on how to better represent and integrate program houses into the community at large.

Until now, the conversation surrounding program houses has been polarized. Do program houses self-segregate? Do they drain University resources? Do they fulfill their mission of building community at an institution as large as Cornell? All of these provocative questions raise complex issues, but they unfortunately instigate a debate that is too divisive to be proactive: There will always be people on both sides of this debate.

Last night, however, at a panel discussion co-sponsored by Students to Unite Cornell and The Cornell Daily Sun, we saw a glimpse of hope for the future of this ongoing dialogue in the comments made by a diverse array of administrators, staff and students who came together to discuss the current state of program houses. Starting out the evening with a blunt statement from Murphy confirming that program houses were here to stay, the conversation quickly transformed into a more proactive discussion about how program houses should be better integrated into the community at large.

The tone of discourse suggested a sentiment that most of the panelists would likely agree upon: program houses are isolated on campus, both in terms of their physical location and in respect to soliciting broad community interest and support. From this, panelists began spelling out specific issues that keep program houses on the fray of campus life. We commend the participants for steering the discussion in this direction, launching a broad and multifaceted dialogue far less divisive than the conversations that have preceded it.

Some criticized the administration for marketing program houses as an “alternative” style of living to incoming freshmen, claiming that the approach marginalizes the program house community from the get go. Others brought up the idea of restricting program houses to only upperclassmen, ensuring that all students have the same first-year experience and have the choice to live in program houses later on. The ability to raise questions such as these is exactly the positive impact a review should bring about.

The program houses themselves were criticized for a lack of community outreach. Pastor Sonya Hicks, faculty fellow for Ujamaa, supported this claim, recalling that Ujamaa Unity Hour used to be a thriving forum for cross-campus dialogue that attracted many from the community. Now, she says, attendance is low, and the house rarely recruits members from beyond Ujamaa to join in. It is the responsibility of all program houses to advertise their programs to the public. The houses should be responsible for hosting regular panel discussions, guest speaker forums and other educational events that include the entire community.

The community made progress last night, highlighting these very critical concerns in a way that we hope will provoke further dialogue. The future of commentary on program houses must address the larger issue at hand: How will program houses build a campus-wide, all-inclusive community that extends well beyond the walls that encompass them?