While I agree with the statement that the visitation policy needs to be amended, I find that I completely disagree with points in Mr. Amos’ reasoning on this matter.
Amos states, “The ease and comfort sustained by the policy’s enforcement, however, inhibits student growth…” as “discomfort is a necessary and pivotal part of (the) maturation process.”
Yes, discomfort and being pushed out of one’s comfort zone is a necessary part of growing in life, but Concordia fulfills this need by encouraging students to become engaged and passionate about what they believe, not by forcing them into damaging and emotionally vexing situations. We all have the right to feel safe and comfortable where we live and in college our living quarters are our dorm rooms. I don’t believe Amos realizes the stress and anxiety that those conflicts create for all parties involved. As someone who has gone through roommate conflict, I would not wish that experience on anyone, even if it supposedly helped me to “grow.”
Amos also makes the case that the visitation policy can negatively impact enrollment, as prospective students will choose to go to schools with more liberal policies. Amos fails to acknowledge, however, that students do not choose Concordia because of its visitation policies; the average Cobber comes here because of programs, professors, the atmosphere and the community. Even if prospective students consider the policy while making their final college decision, they would not overlook Concordia based solely on one policy above a multitude of other potential reasons.
Because of this, one can only conclude that the impact on admissions is not as great as Amos implies. Furthermore, if some students’ only focus is to make sure it is possible to be in the opposite gender’s dorm room all night, rather than to learn, are they the type of students Concordia wishes to attract?
The college needs to move forward in terms of visitation policy and some amendments need to be made, but we also need to make sure that we are not abandoning the legitimate reasons for the policy currently in place in favor of invalid arguments, even if their end goals are in agreement with popular opinions on campus.