It is no secret that the University of Alabama possesses an unwavering focus on recruitment and expanding enrollment, especially within the Honors College. Prospective honors students can expect individual meetings with President Witt, regular phone calls from college deans and, at the very least, a constant stream of recruitment letters.

However, perhaps its most publicized recruitment tools are the suite-style residence halls, which have begun to replace the smaller, traditional residence halls on campus. Their appeal is obvious; after all, they have individual rooms, modern appliances and two bathrooms per suite.

However, when last year’s demolition of three traditional dorms is combined with the University’s bold new plan for more large suite-style residence halls on the recently purchased Bryce property, a distinct challenge to student choice is created.

This is not to say that constructing new honors residence halls is inherently bad. Modernization is good and the University must continue to update its facilities in order to maintain its competitive recruitment.

Problems arise when it is done at the cost of eliminating small traditional dorms from campus and homogenizing all of campus housing. Students deserve to have a choice regarding where they live.

At the most basic level, this trend has restricted the variation in housing costs.  Students should be able to decide whether or not the higher living cost of these Honors residence halls is worth it. If the housing options continue to trend towards the more expensive, then the very frills that have been so effective in recruitment might actually bar some students from attending because of their cost.

The size of residence halls is also a distinct concern, especially for Living Learning Communities such as the Mallet Assembly. As odd as the comparison is, these communities are similar to greek organizations in that they require the autonomy provided by living in their own building to properly function.

Simply moving them to a wing of a larger dorm, which was the University’s solution to those residing in Parker Adams, would limit their ability to host events, set their own policies and thrive as a community.

Finally, students should be given a choice in what type of housing experience they want to have, which drastically varies between housing styles. Because traditional residence halls limit the space in each individual dorm room, student socialization is directed away from a living room and into a common area, which mashes residents who would not have otherwise met.

The suite style housing offers more comfort and privacy; however, the extra space provided by suites leads residents to spend their time in their personal living room, which limits interaction by literally placing a wall between them and the rest of the residence hall.

Students should be allowed to choose between all of these options. If they prefer to pay more to live in a deluxe suite and seek community elsewhere, then they should have that option. On that same token, a student should not be denied the opportunity to become part of a community in a smaller dorm and share common space with everyone. An interest definitely exists for all types and none should be discounted.

As this campus experiences rapid growth and change, it must take the needs of the entire student body into account. We cannot allow the student who is unable to afford the extra costs of suite style living, the Living Learning Community who needs its own facility, or the freshman who would benefit the community of a residence hall to be casualties in a giant plan for recruitment. In fact, constructing modern residence halls of multiple styles may prove to be more of a boon to recruitment than any private meeting with President Witt.

John Brinkerhoff is a sophomore majoring in political science and communication studies. His column runs biweekly on Mondays.