The UC’s Summer Storage Subsidy is a Mixed Bag

Last week, The Undergraduate Council voted to set aside $8,000 to subsidize summer storage for lower-income students who will live in houses that, according to the UC legislation, do not currently offer a free storage option. Recently, they voted to add an additional $2,000 for a total of $10,000 of allocated funding. This will provide students who are eligible for the Student Events Fund—a program in the College that covers the costs of event tickets for students with financial need—in Quincy, Dunster, Winthrop, Mather, and Leverett Houses with a $35 subsidy towards their overall summer storage costs.

That there are steps being taken to address these housing issues is a welcome sight. These problems have been long-standing: In the past, the UC has made pushes for the College to cover summer storage expenses for students in renovated houses. We have also previously called on the College to intervene in summer storage problems and supported increased funding from the University to subsidize summer storage for students on financial aid. It is unfortunate that students have had to deal with more financial and logistical burdens related to summer storage based on the happenstance of which house they were sorted into. This is especially true for low-income students, for whom the financial responsibility is more pronounced.

Although the UC’s attempt to soften this financial responsibility with a $35 subsidy is not nearly enough to actually ease this burden, it is a step in the right direction. As we have previously opined, we believe the University should take further steps in the future to eliminate this problem and to ensure that all students have equal access to summer storage, despite their House affiliation.

While we appreciate the UC’s efforts in ameliorating these costs, we are concerned by their handling of sensitive student information. Currently, interested students must fill out a Google document which requests their estimated level of financial aid from the College, the distance they live away from campus, proof of their SEF eligibility through a screenshot of the portal, and other personal details.

This system to collect private student financial information is risky; using a student’s personal Google Drive for private data leaves open the possibility of this information becoming public or being hacked, potentially putting students’ private information at risk. Students have already seen the dangers associated with private educational information—such as their grades and financial aid details—accidentally being open to the public. Having students submit sensitive information yet again through an insecure apparatus poses too much of a possibility for a similar situation to occur and should not be continued. Thus, the UC should be more careful in how they verify eligibility.

Overall, the UC’s allocation of funds to subsidize summer storage for lower-income students is a positive development, though we urge it to be more conscientious and sensitive to students’ personal financial information. Ultimately, more needs to be done to support low-income students: House placement should not determine whether one has to pay a hefty sum for summer storage.

This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.