On Friday, February 16th, Goucher College hosted the 18th Annual Jewel Robinson Dinner in the Athenaeum. I happened to be meandering around just before the start of the event looking for something to do so I decided to walk down and explore, to see what was going on on my beloved college campus.

Two things: Firstly, it was a formal event. There were suits and ties, so I looked very out of place in my shaggy cotton sweater and olive coat. Secondly, as I walked past the Student Store, what presented itself to me was an open bar! Hallelujah! So I, naturally, ask the bartender for a glass of wine, lean against a pillar, and watch the beginnings of the ceremony. Students from the Dance department did a wonderful number and there were good spirits all around.

Once they broke for dinner, however, I was approached by someone running the event who asked if I had found my seat yet. I replied that I was not on the list and she promptly asked for my (empty) glass of wine and heavily implied that I was not welcome there. So, I left.

This is not particularly jarring. I probably did just seem like some punk college kid trying to get a drink in. However, the context that the event was hosted in the place where Alice’s Restaurant used to stand, somewhere I used to be welcome, gives it a little more weight.

Alice’s Restaurant was demolished early this semester in response to a survey sent out regarding the hours of the Student Market and Alice’s. Following the results of the survey, it was determined that the Student Market would be open later, serving hot foods until 11 p.m., but at the cost of Alice’s, a beloved and important haunt on campus.

The impact this has on the Goucher community is huge. All of our third spaces now revolve around a single building. And while I do love Mary Fisher, it has a distinct vibe, that of a dining hall.

It is more important to have a diverse set of locations on campus to hang out in than to have one centralized location for all things social. For example, what about those students who suffer from sensory issues and find the hustle and bustle of a busy dining hall too much? Where are they to spend their time? Or what if we are simply sick of hanging out in a dining hall all day?

Mary Fisher is simply not a replacement for Alice’s.

I feel there are certain points on this which deserve attention. Looking at the results of the survey, it seems that the fourth option to “Close Alice’s & have the Student Market open daily with hot food offerings” won the vote, but the results are not public. There’s no way to know for sure.

If that is the case, then that result is shocking to me. I have not met a single other student who voted for that option. The loss of another third space on campus is disheartening to many, so some speculation is in order.

Who are the people who would vote for the option to close Alice’s? Well, people who do not think Alice’s is important in their community would obviously vote for having more food later.

The group that comes to mind is athletes. They do not need Alice’s as a way of supporting their community because they already have a strong community built between their teammates, so getting hot food later is the obvious answer for them.

Paired with the fact that individuals wouldn’t have voted for the fourth option, thus wishing to keep Alice’s open, but were divided between three other options. It seems to me that the athletes managed to outvote the rest of the student population. My guesstimate is that each of the other options in the survey got roughly 20% of the vote each, which all together stands for 60% of the student population in favor of keeping Alice’s open, and the fourth option, to close Alice’s, got only 40% of the vote. The decision to close Alice’s was not the majority of the student vote.

This is not to blame athletes for closing Alice’s nor am I saying their want for a later food option was wrong. I would just like it to be known that the decision to close Alice’s was allowed to happen due to the results of a flawed survey. The administration will justify to hell and back that the abolishment of Alice’s was what the Goucher community wanted, but that is simply not true. The majority of students wished to keep Alice’s open.

In addition, the revelation that part of the reason for removing Alices was to make the space more appealing to those who would want to rent out the Hyman Forum for events, tells me that Goucher has higher priorities than facilitating community, despite the dire need for it on campus. Community is not flourishing on campus and the decisions made seem to disregard any attempts to nourish it. Goucher often makes decisions based on money or the needs of the students, such as getting food, which are valid reasons, but at every turn, they seem to ignore our most crucial need: Community.

Disclaimer: This piece was published as a student’s op-ed submission. The Quindecim is a space for all students within the Goucher community to express their views and beliefs. These pieces are released in the name of journalistic integrity and not in an attempt to antagonize or reflect the institution of Goucher as a whole.
They put this disclaimer at the end of my first ever article! Ha!

In the annals of the past at Goucher College, I was free to roam the open pastures of every dorm building. Living in Trustees, I could not only access Trustees, but the dorms of my friends as well, permitted to graze the grasses with my fellow students. Now, in the year 2024, we are sectioned off and isolated from one another and our community is dying. Let us take a tour, a glance into the past, to see why things changed, and how they could be different.

Director of Campus Safety Tiffany Justice has been at Goucher since 2017. The policy regarding locked doors in dorm buildings was updated in 2018, so she was quite knowledgeable on this topic. She states that what influenced the change was a “Bias Incident” happening in 2018. Our Campus Climate Education Team (CCET) has listed as an example for Hate Crimes. An incident in 2018 that aligns with the “Bias Incident” Justice described, and she has confirmed that this was the incident. It’s clear that hatred was spread in a dorm building, and Goucher’s response was to only allow students access to the dorm building in which they live.

If someone writes slurs on the walls of Fireside hall, the most likely suspects are those 50 students who live in Fireside. If access were granted to the entire campus, that number would jump from 50 to 1000. Dr. Terrence Turner, Dirrector of Residential life states that “Controlling access to residential spaces serves as a key preventative measure in our comprehensive safety strategy. While it’s true that no system is foolproof, these measures act as a significant deterrent, making it harder for individuals who might intend harm to enter our buildings or residence hall rooms without detection. Limiting access helps ensure that only authorized individuals—those with legitimate reasons for being in the building—can gain entry, which in turn reduces opportunities for crime, including hate crimes.”

There are some flaws in this logic. The most blatant one is that not allowing someone into a dorm building does not actually stop them from getting in. We all know how it goes down– if I want to visit my friend in Alcock, I just sit outside like a lost puppy and wait for some foot traffic to come by and open the door. If someone is going to commit a hate crime, they will surely break lesser rules to do so. Onecard access does not stop the motivated hater.

The most glaring problem, however, is that limited access to dorm buildings does not combat hate crimes in any real way. Limiting access inhibits and worsens our relations with each other. We get less opportunities to meet people who would broaden our horizons and challenge our views. The inability to mingle with strangers on campus who could change our perspectives makes people more likely to make false and hurtful assumptions about people. This is how hatred is born.

Also its not right to assume that every student on campus is an “individual who might intend to do harm” by default. Community on campus is struggling because of a perceived divide– that some students are against others. This is simply not the case. A perspective that assumes some students are risks to other students villainizes the student body. Assuming most students are hooligans who wish to do harm creates antagonism detrimental to the campus environment. These measures are intended to add roadblocks to those who do intend to do harm, but in practice they are more like pebbles. But for those wanting to bridge connections between the student population, this is a permanent road closure. The community will never thrive if students are not allowed to feel like they are here together.

A real way to combat hate crimes is to foster a community where people hold each other accountable and where dialogue is encouraged and allowed. Not allowing us to interact with students living in different dorms stops these developments in their tracks. Students in Welsh and students in Sondheim are not that different, but this severance imposes an identity onto the students living there. Enforcing isolation does nothing to stop the hatred found in one’s heart. Building a community where hate is discouraged and destabilized is something that does effectively combat hate crimes.

I am not saying that allowing dorms to be open to all students will magically stop hate crimes on campus. I am saying that allowing students to easily visit their friends and meet strangers that will challenge their biases will create a community where hate crimes are not accepted nor entertained. In a community where everyone knows one another, where ignorance must be actively strived for and knowledge is given out like free candy, hate crimes will actually be combatted at Goucher College.

An old deteriorated poster from the year 2000 found in Hooper describes the functionality of the new Onecard system. You can make out very little, but one part reads: “All residential houses will be under “closed access” [by default.] Houses can vote to “open” their house, however, status [will only be kept] until the end of this semester following the vote.” It also appears residential houses would have been able to choose what hours they wanted their doors open, and that the most likely time would be 7AM – 11PM, following Goucher’s quiet hours schedule.

Upon further dialog, Dr. Turner responded:

“I want to be clear that safety concerns, particularly those related to residence hall access, are not up for a vote. The administration sets these policies to ensure the safety and well-being of all students, which is a responsibility I am not willing to compromise on. While voting on residence hall access is not an option, I would like to challenge and encourage you, as a student leader, to collaborate with your peers to find creative ways to enhance community building within the framework of our communicated policies. Opportunities for connection and interaction across campus must support both security and community goals that don’t compromise safety. While I appreciate your passion and engagement on this topic, I will not be responding further on this particular issue.”

This voting policy that gives autonomy to the students speaks to me in two parts. First, it gives us a view of the past and how much freedom we as students used to have over the place we call home for four years. Second, it provides us with hope for the future. A plausible experiment is presented here– how would we, 24 years later, fare with this kind of policy? This kind of policy requires the administration to trust us with a responsibility, but how can we ever prove that we are responsible enough if we are never given the chances needed to prove ourselves?

Earlier this semester, Goucher announced a partnership with our neighbors at Edenwald senior living, with the intent to construct an Undergraduate Retirement Community (URC) on leased Goucher land. In this edition, we have a wonderful piece discussing the nuts and bolts of this partnership, but here I would like to discuss the multiple opinions surrounding this development.

Many students’ initial reaction to this partnership is not positive. This partially comes from the several concerns revolving around allowing the older generation into our community and our classrooms. Many current students, for example, want to know how prospective Edenwald students will be prepared to enter our existing community, especially regarding respect to our queer students and students of color. Qualms in this realm have concrete solutions: There are plans to have a multi-day orientation teaching these prospective students about our community values and informing them of the inclusivity of the modern age. Importantly, there will be a focus on pronoun usage and respect toward marginalized people, while also teaching more ordinary things, like how to use Canvas.

The other cause for this negative perspective comes from a tendency of staunch ageism in our current age. Some of this comes from a place of validity; members of our queer community, for example, are concerned due to the fact that the older generation has been historically unaccepting of their identities. Outside of Goucher, queer people still need to fight to find their space and to be seen, but here at Goucher these students feel able to be seen and to belong. It is true that the older generation is, in certain sects, unaccepting of the queer community, but these will not be the people we are inviting onto this campus. However, in the same stroke, if we treat these people like the villains we perceive them to be, that is exactly what they will become. I would ask readers to reframe their thoughts and give these people a chance to prove us wrong.

This construction begs the question why. Why is Goucher doing this? How can the powers that be focus on performing an experiment in academia when community is dying on this campus? Putting efforts towards this partnership for people who are currently outside of our community ought to come after we are able to address the concerns of the people who are currently here. How can we find the time and effort to spend on a URC, the first one in all of Maryland, but not be able to have Alice’s Cafe open? If the logic states that we cannot focus on community because we lack money and we are focusing on the URC because it makes us money, how can we ensure that the money Goucher earns is spent on the community? This seems to be another case of Goucher having a blind spot towards the needs of our community, and because they do not see us, they just look away.

The average American spends 1 hour in their car every day. If you are spending 7 hours a week in one cramped space, wouldn’t it be nice if that space was cozy?

For many folk, it is. Many people use their cars from a young age as a home away from home. From long late night drives to clear you heard, to just sitting in some parking lot listening to music, many people consider their car to be somewhere they can escape to. Fully blasted heaters are like a bonfire to rest your weary soul.

In understanding a car as a place you spend time in, it becomes more than just a tool for transportation, it becomes a shared space for you and others. Senior Olivia McNeice says that what she loves about her Roxy is that “She has 3 rows, and is big. I’ve always loved being the mom with the van driving people around.” Using your car like this creates a third space for you and your friends to spend time in

A car should be treated like a room in your house. For example, a kitchen obviously has its use, but beside that kitchens are one the most aesthetic rooms in any house. Having a house that has no sign of your personality must be like sleeping in a bed that doesn't feel like yours every night.

So too should it be for cars. People should love their cars so that they want to decorate it and spend more time in a place they can feel themselves. For some people, their car may be the only place they have. Long, cold nights spent reclined in the driver seat can be so much more bearable when the space reminds you of home.

So how do you love a 2 ton hunk of metal on wheels? Despite their looks, cars have many lovers. Junior Wiley Koskinen says about his Achilles, “I love that he is big and red and has a square butt. He is kinda beat up but it would be weird if he wasn't, y'know? I also like that he is super loud so that everybody can hear us coming.”

It starts with a name. When you personify your car, you begin to notice and appreciate the special things about them, the nicks in the paint, the good and bad sounds that come from under the hood, or the muddy footprints left by a dear friend in the passenger seat. When you personalize your car-space and begin to notice these small things happening there, you fall in love not only with your car, you fall in love with this unique expression of your self.

Opinion: Today, we face an epidemic of mysterious people, from the back of cafés to the outskirts of the function. But is there more to being mysterious than just being distant?

The other week, I tuned into NPR’s “This American Life,” whenand they aired a story titled “I Hate Mysteries.” The prologue to the show was about a second- grade teacher, Ms. Maria, who had her students close their eyes, reach their hands into a box with something inside, and guess what the object was. The catch was that while the kids guessed and guessed, she never revealed the answer. The kids were upset, and honestly, I get it.

This was a classroom mystery, but these days, mysterious can be a personality trait, like someone having a certain mystique or an air of mystery about them. When someone has these traits, they’re just like the box: there is something inside we can feel, but we just can’t figure out what it is.

I asked sophomore Sophia Goldberg what makes her so mysterious. She insisted that she was not that mysterious, but said, “Being mysterious has to do with the way someone carries themselves. They have a certain stride, a way of composing themselves. They have their headphones in and seem like they’re in a world of their own.”

Mysterious people can sometimes seem closed off and almost standoffish. Freshman Jack Scott said, “Being mysterious gets interactions, but it is better to be an open person.” I have to agree with him.

There is a difference between those who are reserved and those who are mysterious. Mysterious people are reserved in what they say, but not all reserved people have some grand mystery behind them ––– they just don’t have that much to say. Someone who is mysterious appears to have a large unknown about them, with much sealed up inside.

There are certainly also many who are a mystery to themselves. They don’t tell other people about themselves, because they don’t even know what to say. This happens to us all:, those days you ask, “Who am I? What am I doing? How did I get here?”

If we are to define the mysterious personality, there must be some indication of how they see themselves. This requires a clear vision and some understanding of what one’s life is all about. Goldberg also stated that “Mysterious people are people who think while they walk.,” Iif you have the time to walk in contemplation, maybe you should center your thoughts on who you are.

The mysterious personality can be summed up in these two ways.: Quiet and reserved;, perhaps on the fringe of some party smoking a cigarette alone, with a firm conviction of who they are.

“Imagine you see someone sitting underneath a tree every day, looking like they’re stressed out, trying to figure something out. If you saw that person do that every day, you would want to go up and talk to them,” said Scott said.

If you go up to that mysterious smoker or that treeside ponderer and ask them about themselves and they have nothing to say, they are not mysterious, as there’s nothing to be solved.

To be mysterious, you must have a mystery. A mystery itself is not a personality trait;, it is a tangible thing to be solved. For this reason, a mysterious person cannot just be mysterious. Under their dark shrouds, they must be hiding something.

If Ms. Maria had passed around an empty box, the kids would have said there's nothing in the box, and they would have solved the mystery., Butbut because there is something, anything, in the box, their curiosity drives them crazy.

So, what should that something be? Well, here is my challenge to all those performative folk who are trying to be mysterious but just don’t get it right: Know yourself. Be yourself. Love yourself.

You can perform all you want, but if someone dares to pull aside the curtain, they will see that you were all tobacco smoke and mirrors. When they do look behind the curtain, the only thing that will awe them every time is your authentic, passionate, self. BE SOMETHING!

Opinion: We must prove that there is something more valuable than the dollar. Otherwise we face the extinction of yet another third space. On December 7th 2025, Espresso Roma was demolished. I have not been here in Eugene very long, but to see a place I had only just started to frequent be torn asunder is heartbreaking. It is even more heartbreaking to know it is being replaced by an apartment building.

Whenever a third space is demolished, it is never replaced by something of equal community value. This community value does not matter to our city planners or economists, an apartment building will generate far more revenue than little ol Roma, but now does anyone have a reason to spend long hours on 13th? Sure, you can get a sub or some Dave’s Chicken, but nowhere is there time to spend aimless hours on the un-productful activity of building community.

Roma may be first, but it will not be the last community concession given for economic expansion. Many people do not understand that there is value in the things that do not generate revenue. If we as a community do not assert the value of these spaces, they are bound to disappear.

If we want to stop our cafes from being demolished, we need to assert the value of community over revenue. In order to do this we need to actually use the spaces we are given for building community correctly. Currently, we do not do this, take a look at any cafe. Why is it the case that everyone sits alone at tables with seats for two? Or why is it when looking for a seat in a cafe, one looks for an empty table first before even considering sitting with a stranger?

We are using cafes wrong. Cafes are an excellent place for getting work done, but they are also a Third Place. A First Place is where you eat and sleep, your shelter; A Second Place is where you go for work, to make money; but a Third Place is where you go to make connections, to meet new people, to have conversations and engage in with the ideas of strangers in order to broaden your horizons. In America, we have 1st and 2nd places, but nearly nowhere in our infrastructure is there space for 3rd places. We need to adapt the way we interact with the places we are given in order to make up for this lack of social capital in America. We have to talk to strangers.

If we do not assert that social capital is just as valuable as economic capital, then Eugene is bound to end up as a city where people live, but do not live together. We may never truly have a community where everyone loves each other and gets along, but we can’t even try because the spaces where it could happen, our cafes, our community gardens, our picnic spaces, are being replaced by spaces with a more noble pursuit: getting one hundred trillion dollars. It is imperative that spaces be reserved for things that do not generate profit, but instead generate connection. Not every space is ‘buildable’, and it is up to us to assert that.

UO students may not feel the lack of social capital now, it's pretty easy to meet people on campus, but one day you will not have the university. Higher education is in danger not just because of our current administration, but because at the end of the day universities are evaluated on their credits and debits, and not on knowledge and social connections they provide. When a university closes down, it is likely to reopen as a country club for rich folk, lest a beautiful landscape go to waste. And when we have nowhere to spend time together, what will we do besides work, sleep, and die?