The contention resulting from Cornell’s ongoing review of residential program houses brought a large crowd to the Hollis E. Cornell Auditorium in Goldwin Smith yesterday to hear a panel discussion about the value of program houses and their place in the Cornell community.

The discussion, sponsored by Students to Unite Cornell and The Sun, covered a range of topics including the administration’s support for program houses and diversity inside and outside the houses.

Diverse discussion: Faculty and students partake in a panel discussion about program houses and diversity on Cornell’s campus yesterday in Goldwin Smith.“Program houses are not just serving the students that are residents of those program houses, but serve the community at large,” said Susan Murphy ’73, vice president of student and academic services and a member of the seven-person panel.

Murphy assured the crowd that the review of program houses was focused on identifying areas of success and areas in need of improvement, contrary to the belief among some students that the review is intended as a means of shutting houses down.

The review is “not — underline, exclamation point — about getting rid of program houses at all,” Murphy said.

Leyosta Hall, the residence hall director of Akwe:kon, cited the problem of students developing preconceived notions about the program houses prior to coming to Cornell. The dorms that are not program houses are typically called “traditional dorms,” implying that program houses, as an alternative, are abnormal, Hall said.

“Our program houses are an enhanced experience. It’s a dorm plus something else,” she said.

In addition to enhanced experiences for students in program houses, the houses should be used to “enlighten” Cornellians who come from non-diverse backgrounds “by people who are different than them,” Hall said.

While promoting diversity on campus, many students critique the program houses by claiming they themselves lack diversity — that students within a particular house self-segregate and only represent one race, ethnicity or interest, Murphy said.

Zach Murray ’11, part of the Students for Ken Glover group and one of the panelists, said he found a diversity of backgrounds, interests and beliefs when he moved to Ujamaa his sophomore year.

The percentage of black students in Ujamaa is lower than the percentage of white students in fraternities, said David Harris, deputy provost, responding to suggestions that program house residents self-segregate.

“Why are the white students self-segregating in fraternities?” Harris asked rhetorically. The students did not choose to live with other white students, he said. Rather, they chose to live with people who shared their interests and who could help them grow, much like students who choose to live in program houses do, he said.

Murray said the typical discussion about program houses lacks personal stories from people who have spent time in the program houses. Murray moved to Ujamaa after spending his freshman year in a dorm. He met mentors in Ujamaa who gave him resources to help him succeed and the belief that he could do it, he said.

Ujamaa has a model of “indirect mentorship” that should be applied to other living spaces throughout the campus, Murray said.

Prof. Debra Castillo, romance studies, said program houses provide opportunities for mentorships that are difficult to find elsewhere. Since freshmen who are not in a program house do not live with upperclassmen, they may not develop a relationship with a mentor, she said.

Program houses should provide a “living and learning environment,” not just a safe place for their residents, said Alex Muir ’10, who attended the discussion.

Muir said he was happy with the discussion, but was disappointed there was no mention of Ken Glover, the residential hall director of Ujamaa who was abruptly reassigned to High Rise 5 in June. Glover had been RHD at Ujamaa for more than 20 years. His removal has sparked outcry and protests among many Ujamaa supporters.

Glover’s removal is “the biggest issue about program houses right now,” Muir said, but it was not brought up in the discussion.

Students have also raised concerns about the review of program houses the administration is currently conducting. They fear the review is intended to provide a means of shutting houses down.

The review, which was timed to begin after the West Campus Housing Initiative was completed, is trying to take stock of what program houses are doing and how they are succeeding, Murphy said. It will identify the “vision, mission, goals and objectives” of the program house system, she said.

“We are committed” to program houses, Murphy said. “They are not going away.”