During the early 1970’s, the percentage
of students living in on campus housing was actually much lower
than today. As John Sandbrook (an editor during the 60’s and
early 70’s for the Daily
Bruin who is an incredibly
knowledgeable alumni) noted, “On campus housing during the
60’s and 70’s at UCLA was actually much less emphasized
than it is today mainly because of the relative cheapness of nearby
apartments at the time.” However, those bruins that did live
on-campus experienced a very unique lifestyle full of activity and
bonding.
Some of the significant issues that occurred during 1972 relate
to out-of-state student matriculation and structural problems. In
mid-February of 1972, the U.C Board of Regents voted a bill that
stated that eighteen year olds can be eligible as California residents.
This bill played a significant role in housing because it essentially
diversified the school’s general populous, but more specifically
it diversified the dorms. Because eighteen year olds were eligible
to claim residency, many out-of state students could prove residency
and pay the cheaper resident Californian fees for attendance at
the university. An article in the Daily
Bruin written
by Dave McNarry describes that students could pay cheaper university
fees and the university was predicted to have lost two million in
student fees the following year. Many critics of the later budget
crisis that took place also pinpoint this decision by the Board
as one of the many catalysts for these drastic budget complications.
From many
students’ perspectives, living in the dorms was either considered
to be cheerfully “pleasant” or as one student wrote,
“horrible.” In comparison to today dorm life was much
less regulated by a special administration at the school which made
the quality of life in the residence halls much worse. For example,
one article written by a student named Charles Krug provided both
students’ views toward this issue. Krug believed that the
“most valuable asset” of living in the dorms was the
fact that many students were able to constantly live in social contact
with a diverse group of peers. However, Krug’s article goes
on to expose some of the harsher elements of being a student living
in the dorms during the year 1972. To many students the quality
of food within the residence halls was actually considered terrible,
and sickness and food borne illness was much more common. Furthermore,
the dynamics of running the dorms were drastically different for
students during this time period. Many stalls were barely cleaned
and toilets were constantly running out of supplies. During this
same year, an Environmental Health and Safety Department official
named Harold Brown attacked the UCLA administration for failing
to clean up asbestos from certain residence halls. Some of the buildings
contained poor structures which facilitated the spread of asbestos
fibers known to cause certain lung cancers. Many students were not
even aware of this problem that was a potential health hazard.
Despite
the controversy over living in residential halls,, many UCLA students
developed close friendships and shared unique cultural experiences
through this close quarter lifestyle
Traditionally,
many students in 1972 held conflicting views on various issues relating
to dorm life. However, one of the more prominent changes that occurred
for female students living in the dorms during the early seventies
was increased use of the “morning after” birth control
pill. Many scientists in the field of medicine actually began researching
the effects of this pill during this year, and Ralph Nader’s
research group actually attacked the pill as “harmful to a
female’s health and a cause for cancer.”
It was in the residence halls that
this pill became quite popular as many of the dorms were coed and
socializing was widespread. For the average UCLA student, living
in the dorms was truly a unique experience during the year 1972.
