by Aelwen Iredale
Between the 2024-25 school year and 2025-26 school year, Centre College introduced two new decoration policies which have begun to be enforced in our 2026-27 fall term. First, under the Damages section, all forms of decoration adhesives were banned aside from poster putty. Second, under the Housing Contract section, “No flags, banners, signs, etc. may be hung from the ceiling in any residence hall room” became “No flags, banners, signs, etc. may be hung from the ceiling or walls in any residence hall room.” These new policies have direct effects on students and should, therefore, be discussed, particularly because of the lack of communication about these new policies to students.
It is no mystery that the issue with Command Hooks, tape, and other adhesives is that they may take paint off of the walls. In fact, Resident’s Life Office (RLO) admin specifies that the policy was implemented specifically because “While Command Strips are marketed as removable, their use in the residence halls had resulted in paint, and at times drywall, being pulled from the walls. This contributed to increased damage charges for students when repairs were necessary.” I am not here to argue the potential damage of Command-brand adhesive—though potential is a key word that was used by RLO admin and carries a lot of weight because it is not a certainty that damage will occur and, thus, would not be an issue. I am here to critique the level of communication between RLO and students about the new policy.
To begin with, RLO claims that they notified students of the updated policy in email communications and through floor meetings. However, despite searching multiple times through my inbox and the inbox of others who do not delete emails, I could not find evidence of any email to students about the updated policy, leaving a gap there. Now, RA meetings could have informed students, and, I will admit to remembering a brief mention from my RA about a document I needed to read because I could not attend a Floor Meeting due to work. This being said, while that could potentially have informed me and other students of the change, such meetings happen post move-in. Furthermore, RA meetings apply only to students on campus for fall semester, and thus a host of students remain in the dark. This would not help RLO and facilities prevent damage to walls or billing to students because the information was delivered too late, meaning that people would have already put up decorations. In this case, the policy is not the issue, it is the communication. There was not enough communication, nor was it timely. Mistakes and use of Command Hooks have, undoubtedly, continued, and students are likely stuck with them up now because taking them down will become a bigger issue. If Centre wants to work to students’ benefit with new policies, the communication should be direct, not through RAs after the damage will have, potentially, already been done.
Now, to address the larger change to policy: no banners, flags, or signs on walls. Once again, the communication on this change has been seemingly nonexistent. I could not find evidence of any communication pre-move-in, and the messages sent out by RAs came, again, only after someone was cited for breaching the policy. Unfortunately, though, the message from RAs does little to help students’ confusion about the policy, and it continues a pattern of miscommunication that does not benefit RLO or students.
While the RAs conveyed a message that banners, flags, and tapestries were about being “a fire hazard,” RLO directly informed me that the addition of banners and flags being banned from walls was due to the cosmetics issue of paint-peeling again: “Unfortunately, poster putty is not typically strong enough to safely hold banners or fabric items, which is why these items were included in the restrictions.” Both are valid concerns for a college to address, but the conflicting rationale sends a message to students that they are not being told the whole truth. Is this about fire hazards or paint damages? It leads students to doubt administration and mistrust intentions, which is not beneficial for anyone involved.
Furthermore, Centre’s websites and social media continue to send the message to current and prospective students that banners and tapestries are permitted. When showing example dorms, Centre puts pictures with banners front and center. When videoing freshmen decorating during move-in—precisely the time they should be instructed on how to heed Centre’s decoration restrictions—Centre posts footage of incoming students with flags on their walls. These directly contradict Centre’s policies, furthering the miscommunication.
Now, this is not to say there are no solutions. RLO has met with concerned students and members of SGA to discuss some possibilities. For instance, if the issue is fire safety, there are flame retardant sprays that can be used on banners. In that case, the policy could be adjusted under the Fire Safety section, and the expectation that such sprays are used on banners prior to being mounted could be communicated to students. If the issue is cosmetics, while RLO have said students are searching for possible solutions to the adhesive issue, there are simple solutions other schools have implemented that Centre could model their policies off of. For instance, Purdue and Ohio State both have policies where Housing requests that students leave Command Strips and Hooks up on the walls because facilities has the skills to remove them, whereas students typically mishandle them when attempting to do so (thus creating the issue RLO cites as the cause of the policy). This would also solve the issue of the time it requires, as RLO put it in an email to the Cento, “Facilities staff time to patch and prepare damaged surfaces, repaint the affected areas, and complete follow up sanding. Additionally, once repairs are made, paint must have sufficient time to dry. These additional repairs and drying times creates additional operational challenges, particularly during high volume periods such as closing and move-in.” If students cannot be trusted but poster putty is unable to hold the weight, this could be an answer. In summary, while RLO has the power to implement policies, there needs to be communication with the students and adequate solutions to the problems this policy brings. A lack of emails and reliance on RAs after people have decorated dorms simply exacerbates the issue RLO wants to avoid. The lack of solutions on how to hang heavier decorations like banners and Centre flags creates frustration amongst students when no rationale (or even conflicting rationale) behind RLO’s decisions is given, particularly when stronger adhesives like hooks are helpful for fragile mirrors, personal paintings, or necessities like towels. It is good that the administration is working with students now, but the lack of forethought and upfront communication remains an issue that should be addressed. That would truly benefit Centre’s campus.