40 Students Hold Rally to Protest Dorm Policy at Chapman College : Education: They say the real motivation in requiring on-campus living is that the college is having trouble filling its new multimillion-dollar housing facility.

Angered by Chapman College’s decision to require that all students under 21 live on campus beginning this fall, about 40 students held a protest rally Monday.

“We can’t sit passively and let them take away our rights,” said organizer Todd Adams, 19, a political science and economics major whose plans to live off campus next year are on hold.

“They are laying this on us as we are walking out the door, going home for the summer,” complained Adams, a freshman from Tulsa, Okla.

Fewer students than expected turned out for the 11:30 a.m. rally in the Student Union quadrangle to draw the Board of Trustees’ attention to the issue. It is final exams week at Chapman, and many students were either studying or taking tests, Adams said.

Many students have sought the independence of living off campus, but others say they moved for lower rents, as well as to flee poor dormitory food and substandard living conditions that include infestations of cockroaches and ants.

The policy is not new, but it has not been enforced for at least nine years because of a shortage of on-campus housing for the college’s 1,450 undergraduate students, said Susan Hunter-Hancock, vice provost for student affairs at the Christian liberal arts college.

Now, with a fourth dormitory set to open in September, all students under 21 who are not living with a parent or guardian will be required to live on the Chapman campus beginning this fall. Adams said students will petition for a “grandfather clause” in the policy to exempt current students.

Students say the real motivation is that the college is having trouble filling the multimillion-dollar dormitory, which will add beds for 300 students. The three existing dorms and two campus apartment complexes hold about 750 students.

Hunter-Hancock denied any financial motivation behind the policy. She added that college officials have been telling students for the past 18 months that on-campus living would be enforced in the fall of 1991. The real motivation, she said, is to ensure a richer, more supportive college experience.

Many students, however, complained that they learned of the rule only when they were registering for classes this month and were informed that they would be billed automatically for dormitory fees totaling $5,005, Associated Students President Elise Bigelow said Monday.

Several students who already have signed leases for apartments off campus were fearful they would be forced to pay twice for their board, Bigelow said.

Hunter-Hancock said an appeals process will be available to any student seeking an exception because of extenuating circumstances.

But, she said, “the information has been out there for some time. For someone at this point to be signing a lease, it seems to me that would put the student in a difficult position. But we’ll just have to see how the process works out.”

Bigelow, who will be 21 this month, is unaffected by the new policy. But she said younger students deserve a choice, particularly given the cost and conditions of dormitories.

“Food services at the dorms aren’t up to standard, and you have to pay for 19 meals a week whether or not you eat it,” said the junior from Big Timber, Mont. “I ate there for a total of two years. . . . Sometimes you can’t tell what it is sitting in front of you. Also, cleanliness is a problem. . . .

“There’s also a bug problem--roaches and ants. (College housing officials) are taking care of it by putting a Band-Aid on things. There’s not enough money to upgrade the condition of the existing halls,” Bigelow said.