Reading the recent article "Rectors' pets call residence halls home" (Jan. 26) I was struck by the certain unfair quality inherent in the story. As a resident of Walsh, with a new rector this year, we did not have the good fortune of having a dog grandfathered in. By the new rule, we are now prohibited from owning one, much to the dismay of our rector and all of the girls in our dorm. It seems highly unfair that we should be excluded from this privilege and opportunity solely on the basis of circumstance. There are numerous benefits that result from owning an animal, many of which are especially relevant to college living. Having a dog in the dorm would encourage responsibility, healthy living and overall wellness while offering a relaxing outlet to students. From issues of depression to grief counseling, dogs have proved effective in reducing stress, homesickness and promoting well-being. In regards to allergies, being one of the oldest dorms on campus without much ventilation and totally lacking air conditioning, the addition of a dog would hardly have a significant effect on the air quality. With all of the positive effects, such a minor hypothetical difficulty seems trivial. Notre Dame has always striven to provide a multitude of resources to promote the health of its students, and it seems ridiculous that they should deny our dorms one of the possibly most beneficial.
