UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON ARCHIVES
ORAL HISTORY PROJECT

Interview #563
MANLEY, LISA and MENN, EMILY

MANLEY, Lisa (1979- )
MENN, EMILY (1978- )
Undergraduate students, residents of Chadbourne Residential College
At UW: 1997-2001

Interviewed: 2001	
Interviewer: Barry Teicher
Length: 2 hours, 3 minutes

Chadbourne Residential College; Jennifer Gilbride-Brown; William Cronon.

Interview Session (May 11, 2001): Tapes 1-2

Tape 1/Side 1

00:00:26	Emily Menn (EM) explains her family background and growing up in Viroqua, Wisconsin.  In high school, she thought she might pursue science or medicine.

00:02:50	Lisa Manley (LM) says she is from Wisconsin Rapids and discusses her family.  She was interested from an early stage in the social sciences and discusses how she decided to attend UW.  

00:05:24	EM learned about Chadbourne Residential College (CRC) through the information provided by the housing division at UW.  LM discovered CRC during her visit to campus.  The idea of living with a mixture of upper and lower classmen appealed to both.

00:10:18	LM did not initially see a difference in the day-to-day experience of CRC compared with the other dormitories.  EM agrees that in the beginning, CRC seemed to be like other dormitories.  

00:12:25	One of the first activities she remembers, says LM, was a trip to American Players Theatre.  EM recalls hearing a speaker who had lived in the Experimental College and wondering about the connection between CRC and the Experimental College.

00:15:21	EM discusses her involvement in the coffee house mission group during her first year at CRC.  She explains why it was a learning experience.  EM talks about the people in leadership positions throughout the years at CRC and some of the interest groups which lasted.  LM also recalls some long-lived interest groups, such as the Star Trek interest group. 

00:20:26	LM explains the purpose of the much-maligned loudspeakers in CRC.  EM says the loudspeakers were one of the least popular features of CRC.  

00:24:41	One of the programs at CRC, “What matters to me and why,” featured well-known speakers and personalities from UW.  EM discusses the poor attendance at these events and places part of the blame on the time of day of the activity.  She says it was one example of the CRC leadership not listening to student input.  

00:26:40	LM explains the process of bringing concerns to the attention of CRC leadership.  EM and LM discuss the problem of leaving decisions to be settled at Forum meetings.  Attendance at Forum meetings was often low and residents did not feel comfortable voicing concerns at the meetings.  

00:30:53	End of side.

Tape 1/Side 2

00:31:00	EM talks about the difference between residents who simply lived at CRC and those who were heavily involved, called “Chad people.”  Some animosity existed between the two groups.  EM says that when lesser-involved students tried to bring problems to the attention of the Forum, they did not often have the attention of heavily involved residents.  The majority of residents at CRC can be described as “non-involved.”  LM illustrates this facet of CRC with an example concerning a possible game room.  

00:34:29	LM and EM discuss the tension between “Chad people” and the “non-involved.”  Not all residents of CRC were interested in being involved in the community, but they were there for other reasons, such as the location.  

00:38:24	EM discusses her interaction with CRC faculty director, Bill Cronon.  She explains that Cronon and other faculty had too strong a presence in the community, which should be “owned” by the students.  The impetus for some mission groups came not from the students, but from those higher up.  EM says she had the feeling that the CRC students were being watched.  

00:43:22	LM discusses her interaction with Bill Cronon and says she appreciated the feedback and suggestions she received from him.  There was some frustration among the house fellows and other residents that Cronon had “favorites” among the CRC residents, those whom he would use repeatedly as examples or as spokespersons.

00:45:02	LM says there is a certain amount of animosity from residents of other dorms on campus.  To them, CRC people appear to be elitist.  There is always some resentment toward CRC when working together in multi-dormitory projects.  

00:46:06	EM discusses the campus-wide resentment toward CRC.  Some of the ill will harbored by students was based in the dissolution of academic honor wings in dormitories in favor of CRC.  EM says most campus leaders have been involved in CRC.  

00:48:44	LM asserts that certain people are attracted to CRC, the sort of people who are interested in being involved in campus issues.  Thus, many student leaders at UW have roots in CRC.  

00:50:31	EM elaborates on the unique access CRC provides students.  She asserts that CRC is marketed specifically to students who had been leaders in high school and who want to be leaders at UW.  LM and EM review the top associations, programs, awards on campus and the number of CRC residents involved in them.  EM says CRC begins to seem like “an old boys' club.”

00:54:24	How much is CRC responsible for making students the leaders, or are “Chad people” the sort to do such things on their own, wonder EM and LM.  EM says that CRC introduces undergraduates, freshmen specifically, to connections they would not otherwise have.  This gives CRC residents an advantage and a head start to opportunities, ties and resumé builders.  It creates leaders earlier in the college career of residents.  LM and EM discuss the special access to faculty members.  
						
01:01:46	End of side.  End of tape.  

Tape 2/Side 1

01:01:54	LM explains the CRC budget.  The house fellow controls the floor budget:  the money allocated from general housing funds and the $300 CRC student fee managed by the steering committee.  Requests for under $100 can be approved by the finance committee, which is made up of students who volunteer for that committee.  Anything over $100 must be approved by the Forum.  

01:06:41	The process of managing CRC, says LM, has become more streamlined and easier to manage since the first year.

01:08:21	EM and LM talk about the staff involved with CRC: Scott Seyforth, Jennifer Gilbride-Brown, Abba Tucker.

01:11:50	LM discusses the house fellow selection process and how she became a house fellow at CRC; the normal procedure is for mission group leaders to become house fellows, which keeps leadership internal.  LM says choosing leaders from within CRC results in an elitist group and a bit of “inbreeding.”

01:19:04	EM discusses the emphasis on studying abroad for students in CRC. 
 
01:20:28	LM and EM believe CRC draws more economically advantaged students than other dorms.

01:22:56	EM and LM discuss the academic component of CRC.  Some classes meet inside the building.  LM talks about the academic mission group, of which she was a member, and the difficulty in programming events for it.  LM talks about the classrooms in the basement of CRC.  One of the criticisms of CRC is that students do not have to leave the building; advising, classes, tutoring, dining hall, social activities are all housed at CRC.  

01:25:21	EM talks about her experience leaving CRC and living off campus.  She did not know how to access resources as everything is readily available to students at CRC.  EM says living in CRC hinders students from making connections or learning to manage things for themselves at UW.

01:28:05	Working where one lives is difficult, says LM.  Social ties overlap with job responsibilities for house fellows at CRC.  

01:29:39	EM and LM discuss living outside of CRC, and wonder about those who live there for their entire university career.  Other dormitories are not as cocoon-like as CRC.  

01:31:57	The classes taught in the basement of CRC are only for CRC residents.  

01:32:33	End of side. 

Tape 2/ Side 2

01:32:37	Continuing discussion of the basement classrooms of CRC.

01:33:40	EM discusses the spread of academic mindsets to different dorms. 

01:34:19	EM and LM discuss elements of CRC that can be applied to other dorms: academic involvement, faculty/staff dinners. LM believes that CRC is more conducive to faculty/staff interaction with students. EM discusses differences in internal structure of CRC as opposed to other dorm settings.

01:36:55	LM elaborates on the faculty/staff dinners and their success in CRC. Faculty and staff connected to each floor give students many opportunities to interact with them. Faculty and staff are often more intimidated than the students are.

01:41:18	EM discusses things that the CRC could learn from other dorms on campus. She highlights how other dorms give students the chance to make mistakes. LM talks about how CRC facilitates a high degree of independence.

01:44:53	What do you think should be the purpose of student housing? EM and LM talk about what students and parents should be able to expect from university housing. Some services are primary, such as security and facilitating independence. CRC’s greatest strength is that it provides those things but also presents many other opportunities. EM and LM diverge into talking about the roles of CRC in university housing.

01:51:27	There is still much precariousness surrounding CRC. EM and LM discuss the future of CRC and concerns about its survival. LM wonders how CRC will survive after the departure of Jennifer Gilbride-Brown and Scott Seyforth.

01:54:28	EM discusses the perceptions of CRC and past leaders within the organization.

01:56:36	EM and LM ponder the future of residential colleges in university settings.

02:03:01	End of tape. End of interview.

END