The July 1 webinar began with President Paula Johnson discussing the College’s plans from a health perspective, as she reassured students that telemedicine would be available to students who choose to study remotely. Next, Provost Andrew Shennan explained how the school year will work from an academic perspective, beginning by saying that the school year will be split into four seven-week terms, with students taking a minimum of 1.5 units per term. According to Shennan and the College’s official FAQ page, students can register for a maximum of 4.75 units over the two terms in the fall. Once the school year begins, non-first years will be able to add courses to their schedules up to a maximum of 5.75 units of coursework. 

Provost Shennan went on to say that the College is creating new study abroad options for the second fall term, and that new half unit classes were being added to the course catalog. The College is also a full roster of (mostly) remote Physical Education courses. The courses offered in the fall are primarily aimed at freshman and sophomores, according to Shennan, while the courses offered in the spring are aimed primarily at juniors and seniors. 

Dean of Students Sheilah Horton spoke about housing and student life in the upcoming school year. She explained that all students will live in single rooms, and that the College is implementing a “student block system” to ensure that students have a social life. These “student blocks” will consist of 4-6 students who will eat and socialize together, and students can either request to block with their friends or leave it to the StarRez housing portal to assign them a compatible student block. Dean Horton emphasized the importance of individual responsibility to safe campus reopening, and explained that the code of conduct for students living on campus will be the same code of conduct that was implemented in the previous spring semester. Finally, Dean Horton said that the College is looking into a hotel to house juniors and seniors in the fall. She explained that the College would take over the hotel and provide transportation to campus for meals. The shuttle busses to and from the hotel would be filled at 50% capacity, and hotel parking will be free for Wellesley students. Pricing for on-campus student parking will remain the same as it has been in previous years. 

At the follow-up webinar on July 7, Dean Horton showed pictures of three potential hotels. The hotels have been tentatively identified by Simone Nevills ’21 as the Hotel Indigo Newton-Riverside, which is an eleven-minute drive away from Wellesley, The Verve Boston-Natick, which is located near the Natick Mall, and the Boston Marriott Newton, which is approximately sixteen minutes away from Wellesley. All hotel rooms will have mini-fridges, king or queen-sized beds, private bathrooms, televisions, and high-speed internet. Students will have access to a fitness center, on-site laundry, and a microwave. Dining services will provide students with breakfast, snacks, and to-go meals for students to take back to their hotels. 

Helen Wang, Director of Residential Life expanded upon what on-campus life will look like in the fall, and she unveiled several new initiatives aimed at fostering community. These initiatives include the blocking system and physically distanced activities such as movies every Friday night on Severance green, pop up food trucks, book clubs, and “picnic blankets on the Chapel lawn with berries and cheese.” She also announced that Residential Life will be bringing back the bell desk, a Wellesley tradition. 

Both webinars concluded with a Q&A session. Over 500 questions were asked at the July 1 webinar, but the College was unable to answer very many of them because of the time constraints of the meeting. One of the most popular questions was, “How can students be expected to decide what they want to do by July 10 when financial aid won’t be released until July 15?” Joy St. John, Dean of Admission and Financial Aid, answered this question, saying that students should base their fall plans on what their financial aid looked like last year, unless their circumstances have drastically changed. According to Dean St. John, if students had loans in the past they should expect loans this year, and loans will likely increase. However, student contribution for all students on aid will likely decrease. She also explained why the College needs to know students’ housing plans before issuing financial information, saying that the financial aid office needs to know students’ plans in order to provide accurate financial information. A group of students have started a petition to “ask that the College extend the housing intent form to July 20th, release a full breakdown of tuition and fees for the 2020-21 academic year, and release the Code of Conduct for all Wellesley sponsored housing, including terms and enforcement.” At the July 7 webinar, the College announced that the deadline for fall intent has been moved to July 13, with financial aid information now being released on July 17. Student Financial Services (SFS) has also uploaded sample financial aid offers and bills to the SFS website. 

Another popular question concerned the College’s decision to reinstate letter grading. In response to this question, Provost Shennan said that the spring semester was completely unprecedented, therefore mandatory credit/non was warranted. It is no longer warranted, according to Shennan, because the upcoming school year is a completely different situation, and because it is important for students to have letter grades. A group of students have started a petition to have the College reinstate the mandatory credit/non policy because, among many other reasons, “the conditions that precluded the need to instate the mandatory credit/non grading policy earlier this year have not only persist[ed], but have actively worsened.” 

Some students expressed privacy concerns around the contact tracking and symptom tracking students are expected to submit to in the fall. President Johnson assured students that their privacy will be protected, explaining that students will be using a secure app to log their symptoms and receive their test results. She further explained that if a student’s COVID-19 test results come back negative, they will receive a checkmark on the app. If their test result comes back positive, the result will not be sent to the student, but rather to Health Services. Health Services will then contact the student. 

Many students and parents questioned the College’s decision to charge the same tuition for both on-campus and remote study. Provost Shennan explained that the faculty have developed outstanding courses for both in-person and remote learners, therefore the quality of the education students’ will receive has not diminished. The College, according to Shennan, is also providing an educational program that will enable students to achieve the same amount of academic credit they would in any other year. She went on to say that the College is providing the same student services to on-campus and remote students, therefore it is “fair and appropriate” to charge the same tuition. The College’s justification has drawn the ire of some students and parents, although there appears to be no concrete action being planned at this time. 

At the July 7 webinar, President Johnson spoke about the Department of Homeland Security’s new policy which requires international students on an F-1 visa to take at least one in-person class in order to avoid deportation and loss of their student visa. President Johnson assured webinar participants that the College is “working hard to find a way to ensure that our International students can maintain their visa status.” In a July 8 email, President Johnson elaborated on the College’s plans for international students writing that the College is planning on giving international students “access to on-campus housing” and working with faculty to “make it possible for them to receive some in-person instruction in order to remain in compliance.

Students are encouraged to look at the Q&A and fall planning guide posted on the Wellesley website.

Marion was born and raised in Wichita, Kansas and was educated at several Native American institutes before attending Wellesley College. Her father, Henry Roe-Cloud, was the head of the Haskell Institute in Kansas, which was founded in 1884 as a “residential school,” where Native children were forcibly assimilated into Western culture. Her father, who was identified by The Wellesley News as “the Chief of the Bird Clan of the Winnebago Indians,” later worked to pass the Wheeler-Howard act. This act, more commonly known as the Indian Reorganization Act, was intended to decrease federal control of Native American affairs. 

Roe-Cloud lived in Munger during her time at Wellesley, and she decorated her dorm room with what The Wellesley News termed “tribal offerings to the daughter of an Indian Chief,” including ceremonial rugs from the Navajo nation, Cheyenne moccasins and “Sioux slippers of porcupine quills.” Roe-Cloud was a member of the Phi Sigma society, a Durant Scholar and Editor-in-Chief of the Legenda. She completed an Honors thesis in Sociology titled “Indian Land Policy and its reconstruction in the United States with special reference to the Kickapoo Reservation.” When she graduated from Wellesley, Roe-Cloud wore traditional regalia under her robe as a tribute to her heritage. A Wellesley publication described Roe-Cloud in her regalia as a “true Hiawatha maiden.”

After graduating from Wellesley, Roe-Cloud attended the Graduate School of Social Service Administration at the University of Chicago’s Graduate School of Social Service, leading her to work in the Immigrants Protective League. Some time later, Roe-Cloud married and settled in Portland, Oregon, where she became director of the Friendly House Community Center from 1960 to 1969. She was also the coordinator for Girl Scout troops in the North West. Roe-Cloud encouraged Native youth to join the scouts, emphasizing the benefits of scouting to “Indigenous youngsters.” She pushed for more Native Girl Scout troops, as well as for existing scout troops to work near and on reservations. During this time, Roe-Cloud also served as the president of the Portland League of Women Voters. 

Roe-Cloud then pivoted to working with the eldery population. She became the Director of the Oregon state program on aging. Additionally, she was a member of the Joint Legislative Assembly Advisory Committee on the Aged and she attended the White House to speak of her work. Roe-Cloud said of her experience working with the elderly, “I take great pride in the competence and expertise of my staff, since Oregon in the past three years has consistently come up with ‘firsts’ in the field of aging.”

When asked by a Wellesley publication in 1936 about her reasons for attending Wellesley, Roe-Cloud said, “my point in coming to Wellesley is to equip myself with modern methods of social service practice so that I can take back to my people the best of your civilization.” The Wellesley publication goes on to explain that “the splendor and strength which her beautiful Indian possessions symbolize are gone. Her own tribe is reduced to only 2500, and she wants to help her people get a new lease on life.” As the first Native American graduate of Wellesley, Roe-Cloud helped her people by paving the way for future generations of Indigenous Wellesley graduates.

In 1974, a friend of Roe-Cloud nominated her for the Wellesley Alumnae Achievement Awards based on her work with the elderly and the Native population in the Northwest. Despite all she had done for the elderly population in Oregon, all she accomplished for Native Americans, the prejudice she had to overcome and the love she had for Wellesley, she was not nominated. As a result, her work, contributions and achievements are essentially lost. However, Roe-Cloud said that her time at Wellesley was an “unforgettable experience.” 

One of these new clauses states that “the College reserves the right for authorized representatives of the College to enter accommodation at any time to plan or perform maintenance. Such entrance may occur unannounced and/or without notice.” This is a departure from previous housing contracts, such as the 2016-2017 housing contract, which promised students a twenty-four hour notice “except in case of an emergency,” citing students’ “constitutional right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure.” In Senate on Monday, Nov. 18 however, Dean Sheilah Horton said that unannounced entrance are not compliant with school policy and that school employees may enter only after knocking. 

In a school-wide email, Assistant Vice President of Facilities Management Dave Chakraborty said of the new clause, “Once you have submitted a work order, Facilities is authorized to begin work on the repair, so you may not receive further advance notification.” Chakraborty also assured students that “at all times, Facilities staff will knock on your door and announce themselves to give you an opportunity to open the door prior to their entry. At no point will a staff member enter any student room without knocking loudly and waiting for a response. If there is no response, they will enter the room and begin work.”

Kaila Webb ’20, one of the first students to raise questions about the language used in the 2019-2020 housing contract via social media, told the Wellesley News about her own personal experience with unexpected entry. “Over the summer someone broke the knob off of my radiator,” said Webb. “I filed a work order like you’re supposed to and I got a notice later that week that [my request] had been accepted.” Webb explained that she went to class for 75 minutes and when she returned the knob had been fixed. 

“I’m not too upset about this,” said Webb. “I just want to know what the rules are. But it’s kind of concerning that someone can enter your room while you’re gone. Our rooms are the only space on campus that are ours, so we should be able to control who can enter the room.”

Webb also voiced her concerns over a new clause which is conspicuously absent from the 2016-2017 housing contract, which states that “each student in the Residence Hall is jointly responsible for and will be charged a prorated share of the cost of any loss or damage from any cause to the public and semi-public areas of their residence hall.” Webb was particularly concerned by the vagueness of the phrase “from any cause,” wondering if the College will use the vague language to charge students for pre-existing damage to residence halls.

 In response to these concerns, Director of Residential Life and Housing Helen Wang explained, “Damage caused by students in residence is very unusual in Wellesley. We haven’t had to charge students for this, but if damage were to happen, we would need to remedy that. That is what this clause is for – to protect the residence experience for all future residents.” Wang also stated that the College has a record of pre-existing damage to residence halls, writing, “A record of the current conditions of all of halls and this data is collected and maintained on a regular basis by Housing and Facilities.”

Although the idea of colleges having prorated charges for damage to public spaces is not uncommon, other colleges such as Wesleyan University provide a list of types of damages and the cost that the responsible student or students will be charged. For example, an item left in the hallway at Wesleyan will cost $100, a damaged security screen will cost $500 and a damaged elevator will cost $1000. Wellesley has yet to supply students with a list of potential damages and their costs, although according to Wang, in terms of prorated costs “we are literally talking about cents.” Still, some students objected to the idea of prorated charges on principle. “It’s group punishment,” said one anonymous member of the Class of 2022. “Punishing the group for the mistakes of one person isn’t right.” 

One clause, stating that students are now responsible and liable for insuring their personal property for losses due to fire, smoke, water and theft, has also caused concern among some students. This is a common clause in college housing contracts, and a similar clause was included in the 2016-2017 housing contract, which said that “the student is responsible for the loss, theft, or damage to both College and/or personal property caused by the student or the student’s guests.” Some students have raised concerns with the language in the 2019-2020 version of the clause, particularly the inclusion of the word “water” and the implication that students need renters insurance. 

Many colleges require students to purchase renters insurance to cover damages to personal property. However, because the Wellesley housing contract does not explicitly state that students need renters insurance, some students were left confused.  “I need to know if I need renters insurance and what the College’s liability is,” said Webb. In response to these concerns, Wang wrote “… it’s best practice for students living in residence to covered [sic.] under homeowners/renters’ insurance. We know that some folks won’t have that and we are absolutely understanding of that situation.” 

There is also concern that many insurance companies will not insure some of Wellesley’s most dilapidated dorm rooms. For example, Lemonade, a popular renters insurance company, has a clause in its contract which states that it “does not cover loss caused by mold, fungus, or wet rot unless hidden within the walls or ceilings or beneath the floors or above the ceiling of a structure.” Because there is visible water damage and mold in some dorm rooms, there is some concern that they will be uninsurable. 

International students and undocumented students may also find it difficult to obtain renters insurance, which may leave their rooms uninsured. This is because many insurance companies require a social security number (SSN) in order to get renters insurance, so international and undocumented students may find their insurance company choices limited. International students on an F-1 visa are not given an SSN by the government unless they find employment and some insurance companies even require a U.S. citizen to co-sign the insurance policy, which might make the insurance process harder for international students. 

The inclusion of the word “water” has perturbed some students because water damage has become a major issue in Munger Hall. At the beginning of this semester, pipes burst in the rooms of four first years living there. More pipes have burst in Munger Hall since then, and some students are concerned that affected students will be expected to pay for damage even if pipe bursts were not their fault. In response to this, Wang said of the students whose property was damaged in Munger Hall by water damage, “they met with me, we shared with the Dean’s Office and today, all of their listed damages were reimbursed. Done.” 

Wang wrote of the 2019-2020 contract, “we will always do our best to do the right thing for our students and I hope that at some point, students will trust that is the case. This agreement is not in any way intended to be punitive, rather it is our way to communicate expectations, rights and responsibilities of the College and its students.”

Days before the fall semester started, 20 students found themselves without housing. Although these students now have permanent housing, their stories, along with the administration’s controversial response, have galvanized student activism on campus this fall. 

When the Wellesley News first spoke to Lauren Dines ’20, she had been left unhoused because of an error with the StarRez housing portal and was living in what she described as an “old study space next to the rec room and vending machines” in Claflin’s basement. It has since become her permanent room. “More my choice than theirs,” said Dines. “I was concerned that if I opted to only temporarily live here I would not be found a new space quickly.” 

An anonymous member of the Class of 2021, who had been left unhoused because of human error within the Office of Residential Life (ORL), is now also permanently housed. The student told The Wellesley News that she had been contacted mid-September and offered the original room she had wanted, a room in a language corridor, which she was “very happy about.” Helen Wang, director of Residential Life and Housing, said in an Oct. 3 statement to The Wellesley News that “all displaced students have permanent housing. We are really excited about that!” 

Now that the displaced students are all housed, tensions between student activists and the administration no longer center on them, but rather on a broader range of issues with housing. As the Student Coalition at Wellesley College (SCWC) explained in a recent all-school email, the “housing shortage at the beginning of the year spurred many students and alumnae to examine their own experiences [at] Wellesley and the ways that the College can do better on many fronts, including housing.”

On Sept. 23, the SCWC sent an open letter to President Paula A. Johnson and other members of senior administration. This letter, which was published in the Sept. 25 edition of the Wellesley News, included a condemnation of the language used by President Johnson in official correspondence with alumnae regarding the housing situation. In particular, the SCWC took umbrage with President Johnson’s use of the words “misleading,” “incorrect” and “disparaging,” which they said were the administration’s way of suggesting intentional deceit on the part of the student body. 

SCWC member Tatiana Ivy Moise ’21 spoke to this general feeling of distrust between the student body and the administration, saying “a lot of students feel that administrative figures often put the best interests of the capital ‘W,’ capital ‘C’ Wellesley College brand ahead of the interests of the students. The best interests of the College are not always the best interests of the students.” 

SCWC’s open letter also invited members of the senior administration to hear testimonies on a variety of issues at an urgent town hall meeting on Sept. 25. As the Wellesley News reported in its Oct. 1 issue, senior administration refused to go to the meeting, citing concerns with the event being livestreamed by Wellesley College TV (WCTV). The administration’s choice to not go to the meeting left many students feeling frustrated and angry, with one anonymous member of the Class of 2022 noting that, “There was a lot of important, emotionally devastating testimony given tonight. All the administration had to do was listen to us, but they couldn’t even do that.”

On Sept. 26, the day after the town hall, Moise and two other SCWC members, Tyler Vargas ’21 and Katie Christoph ’21, discussed housing with members of senior administration including President Johnson, Dean Horton and Provost Andrew Shennan. The SCWC later disseminated detailed minutes of this meeting in an online forum. These minutes were recorded by a member of the SCWC and could not be independently verified by The Wellesley News. Members of senior administration were also unable to confirm the accuracy of these minutes. 

According to these minutes, Provost Shennan said that dorm renovation is too large a project for philanthropy alone, meaning the College is relying on its operating budget to do renovations. Shennan added that “it may be difficult to ask donors to fund renovations of buildings that already exist because [donors] can’t put their names on them.” The senior leadership also reiterated the urgency of the Science Center renovations, and when it was suggested that dorm renovations are more urgent than the Science Center renovations, President Johnson is quoted as saying “it is not worth our while to have a conversation along the lines of ‘why did you renovate x and not y, or x instead of y.’” The Wellesley News reached out to both President Johnson and Dean Horton for comment, but has not received a response at this time. Christoph said of the meeting with senior administration in a statement to the Wellesley News, “We feel that our meeting was a great first step in a very long journey that is nowhere near finished, but we’re glad that it’s getting started.”

In this meeting, senior administration reportedly also indicated that the College has moved away from former President Kimberly Bottomly’s Wellesley 2025 plan, which included, according to an official summary, “an 11,900-square foot addition for an expanded and improved dining facility [in Munger]; full renovation of Beebe, including updated underground infrastructure that serves all residence halls in Hazard Quad; and a full renovation of Cazenove, with the exception of the link to Pomeroy.” The Wellesley 2025 plan also would have included “a complete renewal of Tower Court East and West, including renovation of the Tower Court dining hall.” Although parts of the Wellesley 2025 plan were completed or are underway, the planned major renovations to Hazard Quad and Tower Court are conspicuously absent from the College’s new 5-year plan, as are any renovations to actual dorm rooms beyond painting. The new 5-year plan does, however, include renovations to East Side dorms, which were left out of Wellesley 2025 entirely. 

According to a fact sheet sent out on Sept. 18 by President Johnson, the College is now primarily doing minor repairs. Only Pomeroy will receive “miscellaneous critical repairs,” with Munger, a priority in the Wellesley 2025 plan, only receiving new kitchenettes. Other housing projects being undertaken by the College include “right-sizing” dorm rooms, wherein dorm rooms are measured and given the proper size furniture” re-painting, mold removal, pest control and asbestos removal. Moise responded to the new 5-year plan by saying “renovating common spaces before the dire needs of student rooms is not necessarily what students want and need right now.” 

 Many students besides Moise have expressed frustration with the current administration’s response. On the night of Oct. 6, Breanna Olson ’21 placed an art installation protesting the housing crisis in the Academic Quad. 

“I made this tent entirely out of window shades that were installed in the new Pendleton West building during construction but were replaced and thrown away because they were the ‘wrong color,’” said Olson in an email to the Wellesley News. “In light of current events, I decided to resurrect the tent and place it in the Academic Quad with a sign that reads ‘New Student Housing.’ As an act of protest regarding housing on campus, it serves as a symbol of the frivolous spending at Wellesley on academic buildings while student housing goes entirely neglected.” 

Within twelve hours of its installation, the tent was taken down by campus police, an act which Olson calls censorship. “Not only was it taken down, but it was also destroyed and left no hope of putting it back up,” she said. “At this point, not only have they silenced my voice but they have destroyed my artwork, my medium of choice.” The fact that Oct. 6 was the beginning of “Discover Wellesley Weekend,” a time when prospective students visit campus, may also have contributed to the removal of the tent. 

The College attributes these actions to the installation’s lack of proper authorization. “There was no communication with the College to request or obtain approval for this structure, so the College treated it as it would any other unauthorized structure on campus and removed it,” the media team’s statement said. 

An anonymous member of the Class of 2020 shared Olson’s frustrations. “I feel like the administration doesn’t want to acknowledge the current state of the dorms because they care more about their image than they do students,” they said. “Doing major renovations on the dorms would be, in a way, them owning the fact that they let the dorms fall into their current state. We had a plan [Wellesley 2025] and it was a good one, so I’m not sure why the College scrapped it. The housing shortage earlier this year was just the tip of the iceberg.”

Shortly after the Wellesley Underground article was posted to Facebook, Macy Lipkin ’23 emailed Vice President for Finance and Administration and Treasurer of the College Piper Orton, asking her to “put Wellesley’s money where its mouth is and pay food service workers the wages they deserve.” Orton’s response, which was posted to Twitter by a Wellesley alumna, claimed that the union’s statement contained some inaccuracies. 

“Sometimes there’s a context that is broader and partial information doesn’t always paint the full picture,” Orton told The Wellesley News in a recent interview concerning these potential  inaccuracies. “Part of it is that information goes out and then people [mis]interpret the information that goes out there… So for example, some people interpreted it as us having a dining union. We don’t have a dining union. We have a union that is inclusive of … employees across the board.” According to Orton, these kinds of misinterpretations inaccurately portray the scope of the union negotiations taking place.

Another piece of alleged misinformation contained in the Wellesley Underground interview was that the College was proposing wage cuts. In an email, Orton wrote that “the College is not proposing wage cuts for any of our existing employees, and is proposing to increase the starting wage of new dining employees from [the] levels in the current contract.” Orton also stressed that the full complexity of the contract negotiations could not be captured by simply saying that the College is proposing a 15 percent pay cut for new employees or reductions in overtime, and pointed out that the College has been paying its employees above market rate. 

“Part of the process is to try to always ensure that the wages and the benefits that Wellesley College is giving are fair,” Orton said. “Seven years ago there was a look at what was going on in the market and Wellesley was very high in dining relative to other colleges and universities in the area.” The union disputes this study on wages, and also contests this idea of “fairness.” Figueroa, who also works in the Emporium in the Lulu Chow Wang Center explained, “the College claim their reasons for seeking to slash wages and overtime are issues of ‘fairness’. They claim dining services employees earn too much because other workers in the often low paid and exploited dining services industry earn less.”

 Seven years ago the College initially pushed a permanent 20 percent pay cut, which the union was able to negotiate down to a set of stepped increases, where new employees would start at less than the standard wage, and they would gradually work their way up.  In 2015, it was decided that new dining service employees would earn 80 percent of the maximum wage rate before moving to 85 percent at six months, 90 percent at eighteen months and 100percent after 42 months. In this most recent round of negotiations, Orton said that the College proposed that new employees start at 85 percent of the maximum wage, a 5percent increase from the previous contract.

 However, IMSEUA representatives objected to this explanation, saying that the College is actually proposing to stagnate the wages of new dining service employees at 85percent permanently. According to IMSEUA, the College’s proposal would have meant new employees would have better wages for six months, but these benefits would taper off after eighteen months, resulting in stagnated wages for the rest of their careers.  In an email responding to Orton’s statements, IMSEUA’s business agent, Mary Reebe, indicated that the cuts proposed by the College would leave new dining services permanently stuck at wages below those earned by dining service employees in 1991. She also stated that, by the union’s estimates, the cuts proposed by the College would eventually increase the number of dining service employees not earning a living wage for a single adult from 10 percent to 22 percent. 

“New workers will come in at permanently lower pay,” said Figueroa. “More of them will have to work second jobs just to get by and more of them will struggle to support themselves and their families.”

 A member of IMSEUA, who spoke to The Wellesley News on the condition of anonymity, labeled this wage stagnation a “union-busting tactic,” explaining that because it creates “tiers” of union employees, newer employees are pitted against older employees, creating friction between individual members of the union. 

In the days following the Wellesley Underground interview, a petition encouraging Wellesley alumni to “withhold donations until Union workers are guaranteed a fair contract and living wage” began to circulate. On Sept. 4, the petition was hand-delivered by a group of about two dozen students, faculty and staff to Orton and President Paula A. Johnson, as well as the Provost of Wellesley College and the Wellesley Board of Trustees. At the time of its delivery, the petition had around 800 signatures. Concerned parents, alumni and students also began emailing various College officials with their support. One concerned parent, in an email to Orton, wrote that the union “asks for a fair contract that does not cut union wages, but allows the Union to share in the College’s prosperity.’ That sounds reasonable to me and I would ask that the College lead by example, showing its students and graduates how to be leaders in social justice.”

 When asked about this outpouring of support for the union, Orton said, “I respect the support that our union members have among our current students, our faculty and particularly alums.”

Two days after this petition was delivered, Orton announced that the Union and College had reached a tentative agreement with each other. The contents of this contract, according to Orton, include “annual wage increases of 2.5 percent, an increase in the College’s contribution to health insurance for lower-wage workers, an agreed-upon wage scale progression for newly hired dining employees and the development of an apprenticeship program designed to create new pathways for advancement in the trades.” An anonymous member of the union wrote in a statement to The Wellesley News that “due to the incredible support from the College community – students, faculty and alumni – the College pulled back its worst proposals, including taking permanent pay cuts for new dining services employees off the table.”

This is not the first time in recent years the College has found itself in a tenuous position in terms of labor relations. Three years ago the College announced its plans to completely renovate its greenhouses and botanic gardens, which meant the removal of three IMSEUA positions. The Wellesley news reported on the situation back in 2017, writing “initially, management proposed that three Union horticulturist jobs would be replaced with non-union positions. Two of these positions would require master’s degrees, and one would require a bachelor’s degree.” The Student Labor Action Project (SLAP) sent out a petition soon after these details were brought to light which called for the administration to not fire the workers. The College eventually decided that two of the three botanical garden positions would remain union jobs and one would be eliminated. When asked if these earlier union negotiations have changed IMSEUA’s view of the administration’s labor relations policies, Figueroa said that it “has damaged the trust the union has in the College. The College’s mid-contract move to eliminate the majority of employees in the Greenhouses was shocking. And the College’s constant small transfers of the remaining union work in the greenhouse to non-union members just increases that distrust.” 

Although this most recent chapter in Wellesley IMSEUA relations is seemingly coming to an end, it appears that new labor relations difficulties for the College are looming on the horizon. On August 26, President Johnson sent out a school-wide email entitled “Enhancing Health Services at Wellesley” which announced that the College will be partnering with Newton-Wellesley hospital, ushering in brand new worries about labor relations at the College, as many are concerned that work previously performed “in-house” at Health Services will now be outsourced. Wellesley has also been criticized heavily by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) for using non-union labor for its $206 million Science Center project, and also for its lack of commitment to hiring female electricians. The IBEW Local 103 has so far taken out electronic and print advertisements and even hired a plane to fly over an alumnae event according to the Boston Globe. They have also created a website called “What About Me, Wellesley?” which includes a petition for alumnae to sign in protest. As for the future of IMSEUA negotiations, Figueroa said that she hopes that any contract proposed by the College “allows the union to share in the College’s prosperity as the College’s tuition, fundraising and endowment keep rising.  The money Wellesley takes from its students and alumnae should not only flow to the top of the College.”

The email informed Dines that a StarRez error allowed another student to select the Claflin single after her, meaning that she would not be allowed to move in. As ORL refused to move the other student out of the room, Dines was offered temporary housing. “I got an email saying that I would be placed in a temporary triple on Bates ground floor,” Dines recalled in an interview with The Wellesley News. Because Dines has a medical condition which requires her to live in Tower Court, this triple was unacceptable. She messaged Helen Wang, the director of residence life and housing, who offered her a choice between living with the Residential Director (RD) of Tower or moving into a basement single in Claflin. 

Dines chose the basement single, but soon discovered that it was an unrenovated, unused study space. “There were two desks drilled into the wall, and no bed,” said Dines. “They said they would get me a bed, but the only thing they were able to do [that night] was get a locksmith so I could have a key.” Dines explained that a spare bed had been located in a triple on campus, but ORL refused to retrieve it that night, so she got a hotel room to avoid sleeping on the floor. Dines was also told that the desks could not be removed before the start of classes due to a lack of facilities staff, so she was forced to remove them herself using a borrowed drill. Frustrated, Dines posted to Facebook asking if other students’ housing had been “messed up” by the College. The responses she received indicated one thing — that Dines was one of approximately 20 students who had been displaced. 

Hannah Kwak ’20 was one of the students who commented on Dines’ Facebook post. In April, Kwak had chosen a single in McAfee, and StarRez had confirmed her room. Five days before the start of the fall term she received an email from ORL asking her to “confirm that she had cancelled her housing and that she wouldn’t be returning to campus.” This surprised Kwak, who had never cancelled her housing, had been charged the full $17,096 for meals and housing by the College and intended to return to campus. “I got kind of worried, because I got confirmation of my room in McAfee, so I was wondering, ‘Do I actually have a room?’” said Kwak. “I waited for ten minutes and then I called ORL. They said, ‘You were signed up for a room but it got cancelled on July 2.’” ORL also claimed that they had sent her an email confirming this cancellation, but Kwak says she never received one. “I would not cancel my room,” said Kwak, “and the StarRez portal still says that my single in McAfee is confirmed.”

Although her single in McAfee was still listed as “confirmed,” another student had also selected the room, and Kwak was offered temporary housing in Davis. However, when Kwak went to look for her temporary room on blueprints of Davis, she described a “gap” where a room should have been. “I looked for my room the next day and was unable to find it,” said Kwak, “so I was like ‘aha! I knew it! This room is not on the blueprint, so they must have made a mistake.’ But then I see a door with a post-it note on it that says my room number… I opened the door, and the first thing I saw was this huge fireplace, which has to be a health hazard… There’s ash everywhere, and when I open the windows, the ash flies around the room,” As Kwak soon realized, the temporary housing she and three other displaced students had been assigned to was a TV room. “Because it’s a common room, the windows are so big,” said Kwak, “so at night it is so cold… When I arrived a couple of the other students were sleeping there and they looked so cold, and I was so cold I went to the printing room next door and slept there.” 

In the wake of stories circulating over social media, Wang hosted a housing forum on September 2 where she explained that severe water damage in Munger displaced four first-years. Wang stressed that there is no housing shortage on campus, saying “we have beds for all students, and all spaces have been inspected for safety and are up to code.” However, the over-enrollment of the Class of 2023 meant that there were no empty rooms for these first-years, so the Davis TV room was hastily renovated into a quad. The first-years were eventually moved to an apartment in Munger.

Wellesley has experienced similar crises before: in 2010, according to Wang, about 40 students were housed at nearby Regis College because of a record-breaking yield rate. During the 2002-2003 academic year, as alumna Jessica Smith recalls, an unusually low number of juniors went abroad in the aftermath of 9/11, which made housing more difficult than students were accustomed to. 

Although technological errors caused most of the displacements, one student found herself in a completely different situation. A ’21 student, who spoke to The Wellesley News on the condition of anonymity, had chosen to live in a language corridor. The student received an email from ORL, the student recalled. “The email said that I wasn’t in the housing system at all, and my Dean contacted me asking if I was studying abroad…I was like, no, I’m not going abroad, I’m living in a language corridor.” The names of the language corridor residents had been forwarded to an ORL staff member to manually enter into the system. The staff member did not enter her name, and so she was left without housing.

Meanwhile, an anonymous student in the Class of 2020 received an email in August from ORL saying that her housing had been “cancelled” due to an upload error with StarRez. ORL placed her in the Bates triple Dines had originally been offered, which the anonymous student described as “an office space with a guest room attached …It was windowless, with stains on the walls. The air had a stale smell and it was missing furniture.” The student began calling ORL, who offered her a choice between a suite in McAfee or a single in Beebe. “They said ‘please get back to us by 9 a.m. the next morning with your decision,’” the student recalled. “The suite was out of the question because it has no privacy … the next day I go to take the Beebe single and ORL said, ‘Oh, it’s not available anymore.’ Apparently the original resident left the room because she thought there was a mold problem, so they offered it to me, which is kind of weird, but then it turned out the room didn’t have mold, so the resident went back.” Eventually the student was placed in a permanent single, which she acknowledges was “very, very lucky. It just opened up by coincidence. Before the permanent placement, they could not guarantee that I would have a single.”

This student attended the September 2 housing forum where Wang apologized to displaced students and explained that the displacements were caused by StarRez failing to enter data, as well as the deteriorating condition of the residence halls, which she said might cause more student displacement in the future. Wang also acknowledged that many students are displeased with the College’s response. “We have all of this money and yet the College can’t house its student,” said Kwak. “I just don’t understand why they didn’t put us in better places… I think President Johnson should come live in my room. I sent her an email and said ‘I wish you were aware of this situation, and if you are, you should take whatever action you think should be taken.’” 

President Paula Johnson, in a statement to The Wellesley News, expressed concern for the status of the unhoused students. “I believe that even one student displaced is one too many,” she wrote. “Our Office of Residential Life has worked closely with individual students to address their unique situations,” she said, and added that students needing medical accomodations were prioritized. Now, she said, “All students have permanent housing. There are still some students who are in multi-occupancy rooms who would prefer single rooms, and Residential Life staff will continue to search for single rooms to offer these students if and when they become available.” However, according to Shanez’e Johnson ’21, at least part of that statement is untrue. Two hours after President Paula Johnson sent her statement saying that all students have permanent housing, Shanez’e was still living in the College Club, the hotel often used to host alumnae during Reunion and other events. “I’m still not housed,” she said. “The managers [of the College Club] just called this morning to ask if I would be staying there again tonight.” 

Many of the displaced students still do not view their rooms as permanent. Several say they still have not unpacked even at the beginning of the third week of the semester. “I just want a room,” said Kwak. “[ORL] should have done better troubleshooting StarRez, but technology fails and I can deal with it… But I was thinking that they would give me an actual room. I’ve lived in Cazenove, so I know how bad rooms can be, but this is worse… My first year in Caz I had a broken pipe in my room but I was okay with it because it wasn’t a health hazard, unlike the fireplace. And at least I had a room.”  

As president of Wellesley’s Native American Student Association, I have made my views  well known on campus. When I published an article about Warren’s ancestry claims last year, I received  emails telling me that there are “bigger issues at hand,” and that my message caused a “distraction from the real issues.”

It is beyond disrespectful to Native Americans to suggest that our backlash against Sen. Warren is nothing more than a “distraction,” as though our opinions don’t matter. By releasing her DNA results, Sen. Warren added to the cheapening of Native American ancestry, where people claim Native ancestry because they perceive it as exotic, or as a way of denying their role in perpetuating America’s cultural erasure of Indigenous peoples. In other words, Sen. Warren is participating in forms of erasure and white supremacy. She is also perpetuating the antiquated concept of “racial blood.” Ancestry is not race, genetics are not culture and you cannot self-identify as Native. Warren also often draws on racist stereotypes to claim Native heritage, saying that she knew her grandfather was Cherokee because of his “high cheekbones,” playing into the common assumption that all Native Americans look a certain way. This damages those of us who do not look stereotypically Native.

The criticism I have received also plays into a larger trend where people refuse to call out  Warren because she might defeat Trump in the upcoming presidential election. However, you can support a candidate and still acknowledge their shortcomings.  She deserves heavy criticism for her fetishization of Native ancestry and her use of ancestry claims to get what she wants — in this case the presidency of the United States.  I would ask Warren’s supporters to think about the troubling double standard that has emerged from all of this: although there is no concrete proof that Warren ever benefited from her claims of Native Ancestry, she is still a white woman who spent many years claiming to be a race that she is not. Can you imagine if Warren had claimed to be black? Would anyone still come to her aid? There is a clear double standard, and liberals who defend Warren must be honest with themselves. Do Native Americans matter to you?

Warren has a long history of ignoring Native Americans. Where was she during the Dakota Access Pipeline protests when Native Americans were being shot with rubber bullets, freezing water and grenades? Her silence is especially problematic because she has been claiming Native ancestry for decades; she identified herself as  “American Indian” on her 1986 Texas Bar Association Card, and listed as Native in several legal directories.

It is wrong to falsely claim to be a racial minority, and Warren’s self-identification as Native is a concept rooted in white supremacy and colonialism. In fact, it is the ultimate colonialist act, wherein everything Native is claimed by the colonizer — first our land, then our resources and finally our identities. Warren’s behavior proves that she is an opportunistic white woman who used her supposed Native ancestry when it was convenient for her to do so, without caring about the people whose culture she claims as her own while fetishizing and exploiting it.

And yet Warren’s supporters have somehow painted her as a victim in all of this. When Warren gets called “Pocahontas” by President Trump, her supporters rush to her aid. Where are Warren’s supporters when real Native women are called racial slurs? Native women being called racial slurs is a form of violence rooted in white supremacy, as are the disproportionately high numbers of sexual assault against Native women. Again, where are Warren’s supporters when 84 percent of Native women are sexually assaulted, with a high percentage of their assaults going uninvestigated or unprosecuted? Warren is not the real victim of Trump’s remarks — real Native Americans are. Her supporters need to stop portraying her as a victim, and they need to stop pretending that she hasn’t also perpetrated racism against Native Americans. Warren is in fact partly to blame for Trump’s racist remarks because she opened the gate for Trump to spew his rhetoric.

Vote for whomever you want in the 2020 elections, but start holding Warren accountable for her actions. For many years Native Americans have asked Warren to stop claiming Native ancestry, and yet it took her until 2019 to rescind her claims and apologize. It is also worth noting that she publicly apologized for her claims only after she announced her bid for the presidency, making her apology seem like nothing more than another publicity stunt for her campaign. Warren did not apologize because she harmed the Native community. Rather, she apologized because she had to in order to further her bid for the presidency. Warren has been doing real harm to the Native community for decades, and her decision to release her DNA results only damaged us further. Her apology is too little too late.

To many non-Native people, this whole DNA debacle may seem like a non-issue. After all, Sen. Warren is not the first person to claim to be Native American based on DNA. As president of the Wellesley Native American Students Association, I have met many people at Wellesley who claim the same thing. In typical white settler colonial fashion, some people both on this campus and in The United States  believe that they can self-identify as Native. To set the record straight, even those with family stories about being Native should not self-identify as Native American. Being Indigenous means belonging to or being claimed by your Indigenous community in some way, either via citizenship or via kin relations, and Sen. Warren has neither. The 1894 marriage license that would prove Sen. Warren’s ancestry does not exist, her genealogy is suspect, and none of her ancestors are listed on the Dawes Rolls, the document the Cherokee uses to determine tribal membership. In short, Sen. Warren is not Cherokee. When the Cherokee Nation, on October 15, 2018, in her home state of Oklahoma released a statement rejecting Sen. Warren’s claims of Cherokee ancestry, that should have been enough for Sen. Warren. Tribal nations determine their own membership. Unfortunately, Sen. Warren has continued to show a clear lack of respect for Indigenous peoples and their sovereignty. We have been telling her for years to own up and stop falsely claiming to be Native, yet still she persists.  

 By deciding to release her DNA test results, Sen. Elizabeth Warren has legitimized DNA tests, even though they are still viewed as a pseudoscience, particularly when it comes to Indigenous ancestry. She has also added to the fetishization and cheapening of Native American ancestry, in which people claim Native ancestry because they think it is exotic, or they want to steal elements of Native culture, or as a way of denying their role in perpetuating American society’s erasure of Indigenous peoples. In other words, Sen. Warren is participating in forms of cultural appropriation, erasure, and white supremacy. She is also perpetuating and promoting the outdated, racist and harmful concept of racial blood. Ancestry is not race. Genetics are not culture. It doesn’t mean anything to be 1/1024 Native American if someone has no ties to Native community, politics, or culture. Moreover, having a Native ancestor many generations ago doesn’t make anyone Native. It is the 21st century equivalent of white people claiming their great-grandmother was a “Cherokee princess.” No she wasn’t, Sen. Warren. 

As if all of this isn’t bad enough, Sen. Warren is also drawing on racist stereotypes to defend her dubious claims of Native heritage. In 2012, Warren stated that she knew her grandfather was Cherokee because of his “high cheekbones.” This is racist because it assumes that all Native Americans look a certain way. We all have high cheekbones, black hair, dark skin and a feather in our hair, right Elizabeth Warren? This is damaging to those of us who do not look stereotypically Native, and it further reinforces the concepts of colorism and phrenology in our culture. As a white-passing Native American, I have to deal with the effects of Warren’s colorist and racist remarks. I am constantly having my heritage questioned because I do not “look Indian,” or having people say things to me like “what part Indian are you?” I am not part Native American. Racial blood, contrary to what the Elizabeth Warrens’ of this world may believe, does not work that way. I am not part Native, I am Native. I am a citizen of the Wampanoag Tribe of Gayhead Aquinnah and am also Oglala Lakota, and I am claimed by my community as Native.  

Sadly this whole conversation is centered on a white person instead of on the very real issues that real Native people face. Sen. Warren and her supporters care more about her being called “Pocahontas” than the issues faced by real Native Americans in this country. Instead of erasing us or only talking about us in reference to someone white, the time is long overdue for increased coverage of the repeal of the Indian Child Welfare Act — which prevents Native children from being taken from their families — missing and murdered Indigenous women, environmental struggles, youth suicide rates, the ongoing theft of our lands and changing Columbus Day to Indigenous People’s Day. What this whole situation boils down to is that Elizabeth Warren is using Native Americans as props in this astronomically stupid publicity stunt for her 2020 campaign, and she is playing directly into Trump’s hands. Senator Warren tried to play Trump’s game and lost. By proudly touting her laughable, miniscule amount of Native ancestry she has opened the door for Trump and his supporters to make racist remarks about Native Americans, she has made it acceptable for the “Nativeness” of real tribal citizens to be questioned, and she is continuing to normalize the white-supremacist idea that white people can determine the race of others. As Native American activist Kim Tallbear said: “Non-Indigenous Americans will never stop making claims to all things Indigenous: bones, blood, land, waters, and identities. The US (and in this case Warren) continues to appropriate every last thing.” Let’s stop giving Elizabeth Warren a platform to peddle her racist lies, and instead center Indigenous struggles!