Massachusetts Daily Collegian

A free and responsible press serving the UMass community since 1890

A free and responsible press serving the UMass community since 1890

Massachusetts Daily Collegian

A free and responsible press serving the UMass community since 1890

Massachusetts Daily Collegian

The Hull Doctrine

Cade Belisle/Collegian

The combined efforts of Executive Director of Residential Life Eddie Hull and Director of Residence Education Tara Loomis to change the residential experience for future University of Massachusetts students symbolizes itself as the penultimate anti-student policy.

There was initial concern in 2005 at Duke University, Hull’s former employer, but administrators dismissed his “disrespect of students” as trivial conduct. However, major political actions unveiled itself late Wednesday night on Nov. 30. It was announced in an e-mail to peer mentors that their position would be eliminated at the end of the year.

Later, changes to ResLife were introduced: along with all peer mentors, all apartment living advisors (ALA), almost half of assistant residence directors (ARD) and cluster office workers will be eliminated before fall 2012. These changes were all proposed and signed in secrecy. Organized meetings among resident assistants, peer mentors, and the Student Government Association have illustrated that many students could not fully comprehend the cause of this unprecedented violation of campus-wide trust.

Then, on Dec. 5, after hours of emotional and inquisitive hearings in the Campus Center, this new form of insipid, unreasonable, and shameless change to Residential Life was dubbed as “The Hull Doctrine.”

The doctrine is as follows: the unwillingness to communicate to the general public, the fear of looking directly into the eyes of concerned students, arrogant beliefs about student jobs and organizations, the refusal to admit to any wrongdoing and the skill of hiding under the blanket of bureaucracy.

The “Hull Doctrine” seeks to procure the support of other administrators, operating within the confines of an empty administrative space in a picture-less hallway in Berkshire House. Once Student Affairs and the Chancellor’s Office signs onto the doctrine, all decision-making is centralized to a private, student-less hub.

As Eddie Hull claims, “not everything is a democratic process.” Hull Doctrine enforcers use unconventional communication methods – they shut their door when students visit during open office hours, they communicate with indirect e-mails sent to the wrong group of students or pour droplets of information to trickle down the grapevine, leaving non-executive staff members to put the pieces together.

Supporting the Hull Doctrine means ignoring the needs of the student body, assuming a chair in the tower of condescension and forgetting UMass is a tax-payer funded institution. Loomis blames RAs for allowing PMs to assist in fostering community, and demeans the immeasurable work PMs, ALAs and ARDs contribute to UMass in ways “hullification” will never achieve from behind a desk.

When their motives for cutting student jobs are called into question, supporters of the Hull Doctrine react to the UMass community like spoiled children: hollering and screaming against common sense but immediately running behind the protection of UMass bureaucracy. In public hearings, Hull spends 10 minutes answering questions when they could be answered in two. When peer mentors explain their roles as academic advisors and student mentors, Loomis points her finger at the RAs in the room and lambastes them for allowing PMs to “do your job.” As she consistently shows, she refuses to understand the roles of student positions, making it easier to eliminate those jobs.

The Hull Doctrine feeds on incompetency, but it is weak and fearful of student opposition. Hull and Loomis waited until two weeks before the semester ended to unveil these changes so the undergraduate, graduate and faculty body would not have enough time to challenge these changes. They were unwilling and unable to directly answer questions during the SGA Senate meeting. The only ways to repeal this doctrine is for Hull and Loomis to apologize for violating UMass community standards and stop the ResLife changes from taking effect. The list of their wrongdoings exceeds the word limit of an article, so the University is giving the “hullified” until spring semester to rejoin the community and restructure a future we can all agree upon. Should the UMass administration maintain its loyalty to the Hull Doctrine over student needs, Hull and Loomis should resign.

ResLife believes that any student concerns are irrelevant to the direction our University takes. Hull sent a five-page email detailing the value peer mentors bring to the residential experience, citing his only reasoning to eliminate the position as “change is inevitable.”

Describing the student jobs being eliminated as “straining university resources,” Loomis told the RA Council that students were involved in those decisions but refused to name any students, student organizations and days when administrators and students discussed those proposals.

When a peer mentor gave a heartfelt and emotional speech about the priceless value peer mentors bring to the community, Hull stared at the floor and turned his back when she finished. Loomis walked out of the room.

They aim to fill the void left by our peers with fewer non-student professionals who will no longer live within the residence halls. Comparing the cost of paying over 100 students to work and live in the residence halls and receive a free education, Hull and Loomis admit the proposed changes will cost even more. Therefore, another element has been added to the Hull Doctrine: the use of illogical reasoning.

Restore PMs. Restore ALAs. Restore ARDs. Become transparent. Decision-making was never intended for the few.

UMass, revoke the Hull Doctrine.

Roy Ribitzy is a Collegian columnist. He can be reached at [email protected].

 

View Comments (5)
More to Discover

Comments (5)

All Massachusetts Daily Collegian Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • K

    Kenneth WelshMar 25, 2020 at 11:05 pm

    I worked for Eddie Hull years ago when he was Director of Residence Life at Southern Methodist University. I never trusted Eddie. I was the only African American male in the Department of Residence Life. I quit after one year. I would have resigned earlier but I wanted to complete the school year.

    Reply
  • M

    MarturionDec 14, 2011 at 3:03 pm

    Perhaps it would be worthwhile to figure out the ratio of administrators to faculty. If it is even close to 1, then perhaps a few administrators (deanlets) could be let go and their salaries used to keep the funding for the disappearing student positions.

    Reply
  • R

    Roy RibitzkyDec 8, 2011 at 3:36 pm

    @Chris: I am going to use the numbers you provided to illustrate my point.
    54 PM positions being cut; 19 ALAs being cut; 17 ARDs being cut for a total of 90.
    23 RAs will be added; 5 Department admins being added; and 9 prof. staff will be added.
    The math: 90 jobs being cut and 37 added for a net loss of 53.

    Now to the Cluster office staff. During the RA council, Tara mentioned that they are trying to decrease the amount of offices to about six on campus. There are currently 27. Each has about 5 staff members (the cluster office manager, day staff, and student who takes care of packages. Some clusters have less, some have more. Average should be about 5.)
    The Math: 27 offices and 5 staff = 135 student positions. The proposed 6 cluster offices will hold then 30 positions, assuming they keep 5 students in those office.
    In other words, 135-30 equals a loss of 105 student jobs in the Custer offices.

    In total, 195 minus 67 equals a NET LOSS of 128 jobs.

    There has never been mention of 54 PMs being replaced by 54 tutors. In fact, when I asked Eddie Hull directly at the RA council on Monday about this, he said they still dont know how many will be hired or what the position will actually look like. So the 128 lost jobs can either go up or down, but I doubt they will hire over 128 professional positions.

    As for cost, I know RAs do not get free school, I am one. The sentence meant the TOTAL it costs UMass to house RAs and give them a salary, house PMs and give them a salary, and give ARDs free housing, free grad education, and a salary will cost less, according to Eddie Hull, then cutting over 100 positions to make way for barely 40 positions. That does not make sense.

    Reply
  • C

    Chris WhethersDec 8, 2011 at 10:27 am

    In my opinion, as much as people want peer mentors to stick around, they are basically completely useless. Freshman year, Pierpont, my PM did absolutely nothing, she just sat in her room all day every day. She never held one event or get together or anything. She was pointless.

    Reply
  • C

    ChrisDec 8, 2011 at 1:57 am

    In this time of confusion and anger over changes in Residence Life, it is very important that all of the information, both for and against, be accurate and factual in order to avoid the further spread of rumors. That being said, I believe that a statement in this article is incorrect and I hope to correct it with my understanding.

    You said: “They aim to fill the void left by our peers with fewer non-student professionals who will no longer live within the residence halls. Comparing the cost of paying over 100 students to work and live in the residence halls and receive a free education, Hull and Loomis admit the proposed changes will cost even more.”

    The facts:
    The proposed changes would result in the elimination of all 54 PMs and 19 ALAs, but also the creation of 23 new RA positions 54 new “Tutor” positions. At this point, I have not seen anything to suggest whether or not the Tutors will be live-in or not. Through these changes, 4 student staff positions are CREATED.

    There are also plans to decrease the number of Graduate Assistant (ARDs, RLGs, GAs) positions from 40 to 23. There are some new positions included in the new 23, but overall I am disappointed in the reduction in graduate staff because it is the way that a lot of graduate students afford school and UMass Residence Life has had a huge impact on the field of student affairs by preparing the next generation of student affairs professionals for work beyond UMass.

    While Graduate positions are being eliminated, there will be a net increase in 5 department administration (Assoc. Directors, Assistant Directors and Specialists) and net increase in 4 live-in professionals (RDs) are being created to improve the ratio between professionals and students.

    I have not heard of any changes that would affect cluster office staff. As you can see above, the number of live in undergraduate staff will increase by 4, Graduate Assistantships will decrease by 17 and professionals will increase by 9.

    The statement that “they aim to fill the void left by our peers with fewer non-student professionals” is false because the number of undergraduate staff is actually increasing.

    The statement that “non-student professionals who will no longer live within the residence halls” is false because I have not heard anything about RDs becomeing live-off. If this statement is referring to the elimination of ALAs, this is false because the proposal is to have 4 new live-in ARD positions in the North apartments in place of the ALAs.

    The statement that “comparing the cost of paying over 100 students…” is false because not that many undergraduate positions are being eliminated and more positions are being created.

    The statement that student staff receive “free education” is definitely false. I was an RA and while we did have a pretty good compensation package, RAs still do have to pay for all of the other fees.

    When discussing these changes it is very important that the issues be discussed with the facts in mind. Inaccurate information weakens the argument against these changes and doesn’t allow for dialogue. While I agree that students should be included in the decision making process, it must be with a level head and open mind that is receptive to the idea of change for the betterment of the students.

    – Former RA, UMass alum

    Reply