A year ago the Chronicle of Higher Education reported that Wabash College welcomed pets, particularly dogs, on campus. That publication couldn’t write that story today.
A change in the College’s insurance carrier has forced the College to ban pets – a move aimed to limit liability. Unfortunately, students didn’t learn of the policy until they reached campus.
Students and faculty members have argued that this new pet policy goes against everything the College stands for: freedom, choice, and everything that makes Wabash what it is.
The pet owners are understandably frustrated and angered that they have to figure out a way to get rid of their loved ones. Junior Nick Woehler came to Wabash with Monkey, his Pembroke Welsh Corgi, only to find out by his Wolcott R.A., Rodney Federick ’08, that pets were no longer welcome.
“One of the only reasons I came to Wabash was because of the freedoms I was promised I could enjoy here and one of those freedoms was to have a dog on campus,” Woehler said. “I understand that things come up that may not be easily controlled, but I can't help but feel I was lied to when this policy was instated.”
Mr. Woehler is not the only student who feels that way. A vast majority of responses to a campus-wide e-mail were from students who thought the new policy implicated by the insurance carrier was unfair and was sprung upon the students in an untimely fashion. A few e-mails were from students who praised the change.
Rob Arnett ’09, was completely against the pet policy because in his eyes it was an inconvenience to him and other students who currently don’t own a pet.
“It isn’t fair to the student body to have to pay more money to a different insurance carrier, so that a select few students can have their pets,” said Arnett.
The students on campus don’t fully understand the policy and what can and can’t be done about it. Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer Larry Griffith said the policy is cut and dry and there is no other option for students to own pets under the current insurance carrier’s recommendations.
“People have asked us ‘Why can’t we just pay a premium?’ and it is not about if we are insured,” Griffith said, “it is the fact that two people have been bitten in the last two years and luckily neither of those people were in the mindset to file a claim against us.”
Associate Dean of Students Michael Raters sat down with fraternities, living units, and students who live in campus-owned houses two weeks ago and broke the news. Students were caught off guard, but so was Mr. Raters.
“I was handed the letters about the pet policy on the morning of August 15 and I was to share those with the housing leaders and the HELP program and I did so,” Raters said. “Mr. Griffith and I discussed it would be a concern for the students because some had already come back and some had not. We knew this would be a timing challenge but we needed to go by what the policy said and that’s what we are doing.”
Mr. Raters said that the Safety Committee, of which he is a member, had been discussing the idea of a pet policy for several years because there had been numerous issues regarding pets biting people and excrements in the housing. Pet hair and dander, which is known to cause allergic reactions, was an issue in the discussions, as well as property damage to living units.
Pet owner Josh Vaughan ’08 understands the sticky situation the administration has been put in, but hopes the students and College can form some sort of compromise for older students to keep their pets until they graduate.
“I guess being a senior and already having a dog, I think there should be some sort of Grandfather Clause,” Vaughan said. “I don’t see how you can expect people to just get rid of their dogs, they’re family – it’s like getting rid of a kid. You wouldn’t just throw your children away because somebody says you can’t have kids where you live.”
Talk of a Grandfather Clause has been brought up by students to Dean Raters and the Administration. Other options, such as students being fully liable for their pets and changing insurance companies were also brought up to Mr. Raters. Unfortunately, according to Mr. Raters, all options suggested by students were brought to Mr. Griffith and the insurance carrier, but none were acceptable.
“Every student is already fully responsible for their pet in the first place,” Raters said. “There was a student who sent out an e-mail to the campus the other day saying something along the lines of ‘forgive me if I’m wrong, but students who have pets are obviously responsible enough to know how to have control over them and potty train them’ but as painful as this may be to understand, if that were the case, we wouldn’t have this issue.”
Mr. Raters suggested that if current junior and senior pet owners wished to keep their pets, their only option would be to find new housing off campus. Freshman and sophomore pet owners must live on campus, and therefore must find an alternative. Unfortunately, most of the pet owners would find it difficult and expensive to find off-campus housing that allows pets.
Mr. Griffith said changing insurance companies is not even an option. The College just changed insurance companies late in the spring because the Board deemed that particular carrier “unacceptable” and forced the Administration to find a new carrier.
Mr. Griffith explained even if the College was to look for a new carrier, it is much easier said than done.
“First you have to find an insurance carrier that is willing to write an insurance policy for the College because not all insurance companies are willing to do this,” Griffith said. “There is a significant risk that goes with residential college universities – it is a specialized industry.”
He also said the current insurance carrier came to the Administration and said it needed to “minimize risk.” In their analysis, the insurance carrier gave the College a list of things it could do to minimize risk and one of those things was to not allow pets on campus.
If the College were to allow students to have their pets, which it could do, would cause it to go against the Safety Committee and the insurance carrier. Thus, if someone was bitten or had an allergy attack the Administration would be forced to go in front of a judge and explain why it went against all advice, it would be deemed “negligent.”
Mr. Raters does not have a set date for students who own pets to find a way to get rid of them because he was not given one by the insurance carrier. He said students have been back to campus for six weeks and deemed that a reasonable amount of time to have gotten rid of their pets.
Pet owners have complained that there has not been a formal address of the policy, but Mr. Raters said having sent a formal e-mail on August 15 would have complicated things even more because students had already come back. It would have been unfair to those arriving and he decided to wait until all students arrived. Some students have painted Mr. Raters as the villain, but he is simply the messenger.
“I am a fair-minded person and on behalf of our students, that (the surprise) was not fair,” Raters said. “We don’t make the laws, we just enforce them and we have to enforce this new policy even though we are facing some opposition with guys who have and love their pets. My expectation is at the end of the day that essentially the fight has been fought and it is gentlemanly to adhere to the policy.”
Dean of Students Thomas Bambrey is sympathetic towards the students that will be losing their loved ones. Mr. Bambrey explained that this was not anybody’s “favorite thing to do” because of the special privileges Wabash students are granted, but decided with the Administration that “it would not be in our best interest to allow pets.”
Student Body President Jesse James agreed pets are a liability to the College, but was disappointed in the way the College handled the situation.
“Do I think that it's a liability? Yes,” James said. “No, I don't think it's fair to focus on one thing than another. Why pets over other liabilities on campus?”
Mr. Raters will not be going “door-to-door” to perform a witch hunt for current pet owners, but he said the new policy strictly states the College can have “no pets” and that includes all animals, not just dogs and cats. Current pet owners are now forced to find a new home for their loved ones or a new place to live. Something must be sacrificed, either the beloved pet or the convenient and cheap campus housing.
“What also worries me is that this policy sets a precedent for future decisions,” Woehler said. “What's next? Will our one gloriously ambiguous Gentleman's Rule be replaced with a multiple-page outline of what's permitted and what is not, just as it is at every other college? What other freedoms that we now enjoy do we stand to lose?”