When Kenneth Glover, the veteran Ujamaa housing director, was abruptly reassigned to another dormitory this summer, backlash from the Cornell community reflected overwhelming support for Glover and his community-building initiatives within the residential college. Many saw the move as an attack on Ujamaa, which was established in 1972 to foster and promote black heritage at the University, and the outcry prompted the administration to temporarily reinstate Glover’s position for a year.

But the activism that played out over the summer months should have never been provoked in the first place. Had the administration been more transparent in their mission to reallocate limited resources, an open discussion about Glover’s role in the college would have preceded the debate that played out after students had left campus.

It is understandable that as the University faces the gravest economic outlook in its history, every cost and allocation will be reconsidered. And we agree that as all elements of University life are scrutinized, the program house system must be evaluated. But this first misstep and its ensuing debate has us concerned about the openness of dialogue regarding the reimagined Cornell that will emerge from these hard times.

Until recently, the discussion about program houses has been kept somewhat quiet. In the past, these residential houses have been accused of fostering voluntary self-segregation from the rest of the Cornell community. Ujamaa and other houses have struggled to recruit enough applicants to fill their space, and oftentimes overcrowding on North Campus leaves freshmen living in program houses who had no intention to do so.

When the administration announced last semester that they would begin a periodic “review” of the residential program houses to assess their status and success, some accused the plan as an attack by Day Hall. As one activist voiced at a protest in April, “program houses and safe spaces are the pillars of support for oppressed groups.”

But the review should instead be seen as an opportunity to uncover some very real issues at the heart of this debate and open up a positive dialogue within the community.

This means hosting open campus forums to assess the need for program houses. This means providing facts and figures to all members of the community to determine if the most cost-efficient and inclusive methods for housing are in place. This means not removing a key figure in the program house community in the midst of the summer when no one is around to object.

Following through with this will be tough, but what is being unearthed are serious issues that must be discussed in an enlightened way. Let’s talk about the real issues. If there are communities at Cornell that feel oppressed, perhaps the issue is much broader than a question of living space.