Running head: CAMPUS LIVING OR CAMPUS DYING

Final Paper: Campus Living or Campus Dying

Tyler Bauer
Organization and Governance

Final Paper: Campus Living or Campus Dying

CAMPUS LIVING OR CAMPUS DYING

Maslows Hierarchy of Needs states that individuals must be satisfied in basic

physiological necessities and security in order to start seeking self-actualization (Maslow, 1943).
At higher education institutions, this is no exception. Institutions provide students with food and
shelter which allow the student to explore internally and developmentally the self. The
University at Buffalo fulfills this duty through the Office of Campus Living. Surrounding the
North Campus of the University at Buffalo, new apartment complexes have risen that have
started to attract students from leaving the on-campus apartments and live in the off-campus
apartments. Recently, the off-campus apartment complexes, particularly the complexes under the
American Campus Community, have increased. This gives college students the opportunity to
live in luxurious apartments at a competitive price to that of the University at Buffalo. This
causes a problem in the ability of the Office of Campus Living to continue housing students at
full capacity. In this paper, first I will introduce the issue with context. Second, I will discuss two
frames, partisans and authorities and institutional theory that pertain to the issue and compare
and contrast the two frames. Third, I will analyze the issue with the frames. Finally, I will discuss
implications for a solution.
The Issue and the Significance
The University at Buffalo is a public, research university with three campuses in Western
New York. The downtown campus, which the name implies, is located in downtown Buffalo.
The South Campus is located in the outskirts of the city of Buffalo. The third campus, The North
Campus, is located in the town of Amherst which is a suburban area located four miles north of
the South Campus. The University at Buffalo enrolled 29,850 students in Fall 2013 (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2014). Among those 29,850 students, around 9,000 utilized oncampus housing. The North Campus is located in the town of Amherst which is predominately a

CAMPUS LIVING OR CAMPUS DYING

suburban area. With the increase of students in the area, the town of Amherst has increased
consumer based shops, malls and apartment complexes. These apartment complexes were built
in areas around the North Campus which has given students the opportunity to move to offcampus apartment complexes at an affordable price.
The Issue
Around the University at Buffalo North Campus, the town of Amherst is considered more
attractive to college students due to the safety and amenities in places around it. With the
increase of more apartments in the surrounding areas of Amherst, the University at Buffalo
Office of Campus Living will face lower retention rates. Students of the University at Buffalo
will have the option of choosing on-campus housing and off-campus housing. The off-campus
housing, owned by private businesses, provides students with amenities such as tanning beds,
swimming pools, fitness centers as well as a personal bathroom. These amenities are attractive to
a millennial student that will most likely be at an institution with communal bathrooms and
group lounges if living on-campus. Students will most likely choose the option with the cheapest
prices as well as the best amenities.
The University at Buffalo Department of University Life and Services receives over half
of the departments budget from the housing cost. This salary is used to renovate the apartment
and residence complexes, improve facilities and provide salaries to staff workers. With students
continuing to pursue outside living options, the Department of University Life and Services will
struggle financially with lack of students pursuing on-campus housing. This puts pressure on the
Office of Campus Living to ensure that students utilize the on-campus housing as opposed to
other options. With the current recession, the financial concerns of college students cause the
students to seek cheaper housing.

CAMPUS LIVING OR CAMPUS DYING

Originally, the cheapest housing was located around the South Campus in the outskirts of
Buffalo. Due to the increased crime and run down houses, the student body continued to live oncampus in the residence halls. The University at Buffalos North Campus is located in a safe
environment with plenty of space surrounding the campus. In response, more off-campus
apartments have been increasing surrounding the North Campus. The increase of housing will
lead to decrease in prices due to surplus of apartment complexes in the area. This can be assumed
due to the economics principle of supply and demand (Henderson, 1922). Since the off-campus
apartment complexes are located in a safe area as well as around the same price range (Campus
Living, n.d.; University Village at Sweethome, n.d.), the University at Buffalos Office of
Campus Living will face extreme competition between students wanting to live on-campus or
off-campus which can ultimately lead to Office of Campus Livings demise. This demise would
cause salary cuts and halted projects which would negatively impact the institution.
The Significance
Institutions look to develop the student as a whole. When students live on-campus, the
student develops more cognitively, morally and ethically than a student who lives off-campus
(Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005). When students choose to live off-campus, the student fails to
engage in residence life programs that engage the student academically and socially. American
Campus Communities is a private company that does not focus on the development of the
student as a whole. When students live in these types of complexes, the student is seen as a
consumer and not as an individual seeking internal and external knowledge. American Campus
Communities causes institutions, such as the University at Buffalo, to function more as a
business than an institution by creating competition between off-campus housing and on-campus

CAMPUS LIVING OR CAMPUS DYING

housing. Institutions, therefore, focus more on the attendance of the student as a number than on
the student as an individual.
With the Office of Campus Living losing students, the overall financial aspect of student
affairs at the University at Buffalo will be affected. As is, the University at Buffalo is a research
institution. When the university decides where funding should be allocated, the focus is on
research grants and prosperity. If the Office of Campus Living were to lose money from the
student population, student affairs would face devastating effects. This could cause staff
members to lose jobs and programs to be shut down in the division of student affairs. Of course,
this is an extreme but possible if the issue were to become more serious or effectively planned
for.
Context and Methods
Context. In 1998, the University at Buffalo President, William Greiner, was looking to
create more residence halls on the North Campus. The State University of New York (SUNY) did
not allow the allocation of public or private funds to be contributed towards a residence hall.
President Greiner, who was previously a lawyer, found a loophole in the system which allowed
the purchasing of land on the universitys campus for private purposes. Greiner encouraged the
University at Buffalo Alumni Association, a private company, to purchase the land. This allowed
the UB Foundation to buy the land from the UB Alumni Association. On this land, no residence
halls were permitted but apartment complexes were allowed (B. Haggerty, personal
communication, April 16, 2015).
Greiner hired outside contractors to survey students and build apartment complexes that
catered to the students recommendations. Among one of these contractors, American Campus
Communities surveyed the students and provided the groundwork for the apartment complexes

CAMPUS LIVING OR CAMPUS DYING

such as Hadley Village, South Lake Village and Flint Village. When Greiner retired, John
Simpson was appointed the new president. He immediately halted the continuation of new
apartments for the creation of a Master Plan. The Master Plan was to create a shared vision of the
campus which would ultimately become UB2020. While this took place, American Campus
Communities saw a demand for student apartments on the University at Buffalos campus. The
company purchased land across from the campus in Amherst and built fully furnished apartment
complexes, named the Villas at Sweethome, catered specifically to the University at Buffalo
students as well as luxurious amenities such as those mentioned before, tanning beds, swimming
pools, fitness centers and personal bathrooms.
Methods. To gain more information on the subject, two interviews were conducted with
individuals that work in the Office of Campus Living. This provided the context of the issue that
is the focus of this paper. The first interview conducted was with Daniel Ryan, the Director of
Off-Campus Services at the University at Buffalo. Due to Ryans schedule and recommendation,
he was interviewed via email. His answers were short and direct. He seemed to negate any issue
of competition between living on-campus and off-campus by stating that the University at
Buffalo is impossible to compete with. This caused the assumption that no issue was present.
When Brian Haggerty, the Senior Associate Director of Residential Life at the University at
Buffalo, was interview, he explained the context of the situation and the possible implications for
the future. Haggerty was open to discuss the issue and went on to state that the Office of Campus
Living has started to create competition by offering amenities such as HBOGO for all on-campus
students. Haggerty laid the foundation of the issue and provided possible action steps in the
future.
The Two Frames

CAMPUS LIVING OR CAMPUS DYING

The Office of Campus Living faces an issue with the off-campus housing complexes that
surround the North Campus. In order to understand the issue more, two organizational frames are
mentioned that will provide possible interventions or action steps toward a solution. The first
frame focuses on the political frame, more specifically the vertical power of partisans and
authorities. The second is institutional theory which is under systems theory.
Partisans and Authorities
The political frame focuses on the concept of power. Power is the ability to get people
to do something against their own will or against their interests (p. 541, Bess & Dee, 2008). In
other words, power is getting an individual to do something that they do not want to do. This is
seen as an exercise of control. In the political frame, the more power that an individual has, the
more control you have over others and therefore the institution. In a formal hierarchy
relationship, the individual with the power is considered an authority (Bess & Dee, 2008). In
order to be considered an authority, individuals have to recognize the authority as proper and
reasonable (Bess & Dee, 2008). With the responsibilities on the authority, a vertical power is
established when the individuals form a bureaucratic hierarchy towards the authority figure (Bess
& Dee, 2008). An example would be the president of a university and the vice presidents
underneath her.
Partisans and authorities is a vertical power that focuses on the relationship between the
authority of the organization and the partisans, or the ones affected by the authoritys decisions
and actions (Bess & Dee, 2008). Three different groups of partisans exist. The first group is the
solidary group. This group of partisans is only affiliated due to social reasons such as a group of
associate directors from across different divisions of an institution that do not typically work
together. The second group of partisans is interest groups. Interest groups are individuals that are

CAMPUS LIVING OR CAMPUS DYING

following a certain mission or purpose. The individuals of this group comprise of members of a
certain departments or committees. These departments and committees seek to influence the
authority of the organizations. The final group is known as a quasi group. A quasi group does not
necessarily have common goals or interaction between its members. Typically this group is
categorized by social characteristics such as age, gender, race and sex (Bess & Dee, 2008).
The amount of trust that the group of partisans have on the authority is a major indicator
of the overall attitudes and possible interactions between the partisans and authorities (Bess &
Dee, 2008). Partisans can have three different levels of trust toward the authority: high
(confidence), moderate (neutrality) or low (alienation) (Bess & Dee, 2008). Depending on the
level of trust, the partisans can choose to either to whole heartedly support the authority or
choose to be cautious. The more trust, or confidence, partisans have on the authority the less
likely that the partisan would act against the authority (Bess & Dee, 2008). Thus if partisans have
low trust, or alienation, towards the authority, the partisans try to influence the authority to
follow their interior motives (Bess & Dee, 2008).
Partisans can have an upward influence on the authorities. The authority does not
necessarily need to be bad. The political frame is focused on the notion of power (Bess & Dee,
2008). If partisans can gain power over the authority, the partisans would seize the opportunity.
There are three ways that partisans can gain upward influence on the authority (Bess & Dee,
2008). First, constraints cause the addition of a disadvantage toward the authoritys actions or
behaviors. An example could be that students may choose to strike against an institution. Second,
a deal is formed between the authority and partisan that provides a certain service towards the
partisans that is wanted. This is called inducements. Third, persuasion is convincing the authority
to change their mind about a certain issue or action (Bess & Dee, 2008). Trust is significant in

CAMPUS LIVING OR CAMPUS DYING

the ways that partisans can gain upward influence. If partisans feel alienated from the authority,
the partisans are more likely to exercise constraints on the authority. On the other hand, if
partisans feel confident in the authority, the partisans try to persuade the authority (Bess & Dee,
2008).
Institutional Theory
Institutional theory is part of a larger group known as systems theory. Systems theory
focuses on the creation of outputs. Similar to a system in general, inputs are added to an
organization to produce outputs which are then released into the environment. When applying
this to a higher education context, the inputs into the institution are students. The institution has
students engage in class work, professional networking and experiential learning to create an
output, or graduated student that would benefit the environment. The environment, then, plays an
important role on the system as a whole. If the inputs, do not wish to be part of the system, the
system will not be able to produce the same amount of outputs that the environment needs. The
degree with which the environment controls the system is known as environmental determinism
(Bess & Dee, 2008). In response, organizational leadership may try to control the environment to
favor the organization. The degree with which leadership believes they can make choices over
the environment is known as perceived choice (Bess & Dee, 2008).
When an institution has high environmental determinism and low perceived choice, the
organization has little choice but to follow the path that the environment dictates. Institutional
theory looks at ways organizations can strategically position themselves competitively against
other organizations (Bess & Dee, 2008). An organization can position them strategically two
ways. The first way is to distinguish themselves as different and stand out in the environment for
which it is located. Another way is to compete for to be more alike. The organization can strive

CAMPUS LIVING OR CAMPUS DYING

10

to become more like the existing organizations as a way to ensure legitimacy and worthy of
support (Bess & Dee, 2008). Organizations that deviate from the norms and expectancies of
other organizations are less likely to receive support from external organizations or
constituencies.
Organizations can be severely limited in strategies and policies that puts the organization
in a metaphorical cage. When organizations only use strategies that are successful in other
organizations, the organization is deemed isomorphic (Bess & Dee, 2008).This conformity
towards other successful organizations can be split into three different kinds: coercive, mimetic
and normative. Coercive conformity is forced on an organization due to policies, rules or laws.
Mimetic conformity arises as a result of competition. Mimetic internationally cop(ies) other
organizations to reduce competitive uncertainty (p. 142, Bess & Dee, 2008). Normative
conformity exists due to the social and cultural norms that all organizations should follow.
Therefore, the norms decide what all organizations of a certain type should behave (Bess & Dee,
2008). Under institutional theory, the organization has the ability to transform perceived choice
from low to high which would lead the organization to form a symbiotic relationship between the
organization and the external environment.
Compare and Contrast
The two theories, partisans and authorities and institutional theory, both have similarities
and differences. The similarities between the two theories indicate that the practical usage of
these frames does not give a clear definition of the future (Bess & Dee, 2008). The frames are
abstract and therefore cannot predict the outcome of events. The two frames do provide an
overview of the mentality and focus of the organizations during various moments along a
timeline. For both of the theories, an emphasis on maintaining the status quo is apparent. The

CAMPUS LIVING OR CAMPUS DYING

11

authorities want to ensure that the partisans are continuing to work under the ideas and
motivations of the authority figure. For institutional theory, the organization is focused on the
social and cultural norms that are dictated by the environment.
For both institutional theory and partisans and authorities, the organization or leader
needs to focus on the internal structure and motivation of the subordinates. Without the support
of the subordinates in the organization, the leadership will falter and individuals will focus on
other motives. In order for individuals to understand the organizational culture and motives, both
theories call for the leaders and subordinates to learn. Institutional theory calls for the learning of
the nationwide trends and norms. These norms are implemented in the organization with the
understanding of the current status of the organization. Partisans and authorities learn to control
or manipulate the system in the terms of gaining power and trust. Although the theories call for
learning within the organization, the overall focus of both of the theories are different in many
ways.
The focuses of the two theories provide one of the major differences between the two
theories. For partisans and authorities, the focus of the leadership and subordinates is on power
and trust. The individuals within this type of theory are constantly seeking information or
relationships that would foster an advantage over another (Bess & Dee, 2008). Although this may
seem negative, the competition and conflict between individuals ensures that the organization is
constantly growing and shifting. On the other hand, institutional theory focuses on the
environment. The environment dictates many decisions within an organization. Competition is
natural and within institutional theory but instead of having competition between authority and
partisans, the competition is between the organization and the external environment.

CAMPUS LIVING OR CAMPUS DYING

12

The competition differences between institutional and partisan and authorities theories
leads to another difference. Partisans and authorities are concerned with the internal functions of
the organization rather than the environment. The external environment is not taken into account
with the political theory of partisans and authorities. Institutional theory includes inputs and
outputs of the system and how that affects the environment. Thus, institutional theory is more
encompassing than the other theory. Within political frame, the organizations that the authorities
lead might not be effective towards the environment. By focusing too much on power, the
organization might not be producing the adequate outputs to the external environment. This
could lead to the organization failing because of the lack of knowledge towards the necessities
and trends of the people.
Both theories apply to the Office of Campus Living and the off-campus apartment
complexes. The political nature of public institutions and the understanding of the environment
helps conceptualize the issue as a whole and understand the motives and influences behind them.
Although both are similar, the differences in the theories provide a deeper understanding of the
issue at hand. The partisans and inputs of the issue are important to the motive and potential
outcomes. Using these two theories, the future is not predicted accurately and therefore needs to
be considered and researched frequently.
Analysis
For this paper, the original issue that was observed seemed like a recent problem. It was
through interviews that the issue was understood as taking place throughout the past two
decades. For the analysis, I will look at the transition for the University at Buffalo to increase the
housing as well as halt production of the on-campus university apartment. The second part will

CAMPUS LIVING OR CAMPUS DYING

13

look at the current issue of the Office of Campus Living and off-campus housing and how that
affects the University at Buffalo.
1998-2011
When William Greiner was president of the University at Buffalo in 1993, he decided to
find a way to create more housing on campus. This creation of more on-campus housing can be
seen as institutional theory. In comparison to other large public schools, the University at Buffalo
did not have enough attractive housing space. The creation of more housing would bring the
University to the standard of the big time public research university status. By mimetic
conformity, the university felt a pressure from the external environment to create more housing.
Seen with no choice in the matter, President Greiner found a loophole in the system to create the
on-campus apartment complexes that we know now. Greiner, knowing that the University at
Buffalo not having enough resources, hired outside contractors that had a strong reputation of
creating complexes around the United States (B. Haggerty, personal communication, April 16,
2015).
The outside contractors surveyed students on the University at Buffalos campus and
created multiple apartment complexes that were catered to the student. When President Greiner
retired, the newly elected President, John Simpson, halted the construction of more apartment
complexes to formulate the UB2020 initiative. The actions of the outside vendors, in particular
American Campus Communities, represent the partisans and authorities theory. When the
University at Buffalo hired the American Campus Communities to survey students and help
construct apartment complexes, the University at Buffalo was an authoritarian figure that hired a
partisan to do work on campus. The power of the situation was in the University at Buffalos
leadership. After working with President Greiner for five years constructing apartment

CAMPUS LIVING OR CAMPUS DYING

14

complexes, it can be assumed that the American Campus Communities trusted the leadership of
the University at Buffalo to continue constructing complexes. When Simpson became president,
the trust had to be reevaluated.
When President Simpson ordered a halt in apartment construction, the American Campus
Communities lost trust in the leadership of the University at Buffalo. According to partisan and
authorities, a decrease in trust leads to alienation. This alienation lead to the partisan to find an
opportunity to gain more power over the authority. The partisan in the situation had knowledge
of the student body and decided to create apartment complexes off-campus to generate a
constraint against the University at Buffalo. The off-campus apartment complexes, being a
private company, had no coercive conformity to adhere to. The off-campus apartments were not
spaces for students to have living and learning experiences but instead a space for the American
Campus Communities to make a profit. Thus, the partisans, instead of listening to authorities,
decided to become an authority group.
The political frame is even more present in the actions of the University at Buffalo after
the Town of Amherst allowed other outside contractors, similar to American Campus
Communities, to use land for off-campus apartments. The American Campus Community
purchased land from the Town of Amherst on Rensch Road which is across the street from the
University at Buffalo. The University at Buffalo pleaded to the Town of Amherst stating that the
purchased land was zoned for research and that the Town of Amherst is not legally allowed to
sell the land for apartment complexes. Eventually, the University at Buffalo, expressing their
authoritarian status, filed a lawsuit against the Town of Amherst stating the land was supposed to
be used for UB2020 initiatives. Eventually, the University at Buffalo lost the lawsuit and
American Campus Communities continued to build complexes in the surrounding Amherst area.

CAMPUS LIVING OR CAMPUS DYING

15

The University at Buffalo believed that they were the authority and the Town of Amherst was the
partisan. In reality, this was far from the answer.
2012-Present
With the completion of the third complex off of the University at Buffalos North
Campus, American Campus Communities accommodates around 2000 students. Institutional
theory is seen in the marketing style of American Campus Communities at the University at
Buffalo. The University at Buffalo does not allow American Campus Communities to advertise
on the Universitys campus. The company wanted to appear as a norm to the University at
Buffalo students. Knowing that students would not want to live with an unknown company offcampus, American Campus Communities adopted a blue and white color assortment for apparel
and merchandise. The Commons, an area that is located on-campus but is technically not owned
by the University, allowed American Campus Communities to rent office space on campus so
students can ask questions.
To further instill that the American Campus Communities as a normal campus apartment
complex, American Campus Communities created sponsorships with various divisions on
campus. The private company has sponsored the University at Buffalo Athletic program, the
Universitys longest tradition known as Oozefest, and the University at Buffalo Alumni
Association events, just to name a few. The inputs of the off-campus apartments, the students, are
more likely to engage with American Campus Communities because of the familiar color
schema, campus sponsorships and similar logo. Ironically, the symbol of American Campus
Communities is three pillars that add a close resemblance to the tall pillars of the University at
Buffalos Baird Point. Baird Point is a symbolic and unique part of the University experience at
the University at Buffalo. When looking at institutional theory, the common theme is that an

CAMPUS LIVING OR CAMPUS DYING

16

organization can choose to be different or choose to be the same. For American Campus
Communities, the organization chose to be the same with the institution that the students identify
with.
Partisans and authorities is an example of how the University continued to seek power
and control over the partisans, which in this case were American Campus Communities and the
Town of Amherst. Unfortunately, the institution did not realize the potential power and influence
the partisans have over the authorities. Institutional theory influenced the building of more
apartment complexes on campus by the University at Buffalo. After American Campus
Communities created their own apartments, institutional theory was present in their marketing
and programming strategies. Since this issue is ongoing, American Campus Communities could
continue to build more complexes in the area. These complexes, similar to Supply and Demand
mentioned before (Henderson, 1922), will cause the price of apartment complexes around the
North Campus to decline. The decline would give an advantage to American Campus
Communities and potentially make them the authority in the off-campus housing market. With
the addition of amenities on off-campus housing, the University at Buffalo could use institutional
theory to create amenities similar to the off-campus apartments. For the next part of the paper, I
will discuss potential advice.
Advice
The issue of off-campus apartment complexes around the North Campus of the
University at Buffalo will be long lasting. The three large complexes have been built in the past
decade. Separate from American Campus Communities, other apartment complexes created by
outside vendors are appearing around the North Campus. According to some Campus Living
staff, the office of Campus Living needs to find ways to compete against the growing apartment

CAMPUS LIVING OR CAMPUS DYING

17

complexes in the area by providing more amenities (B. Haggerty, personal communication, April
16, 2015). Other staff members believe that the issue is not as detrimental to the campus, by
saying that campus living continues to have an extremely high occupancy rate (D. Ryan,
personal communication, April 9, 2015) even with the appearance of new apartment complexes
in the area. Ryan went on to state that the off-campus venues have a difficult time matching the
safety amenities of University police, high speed Internet and entertainment options. By
institutional theory, the off-campus apartment complexes will continue to attempt to match the
sameness of the University, such as high speed Internet, safety amenities and entertainment
options. I see three potential options for the future.
Buy Out American Campus Communities
Starting in the early 2000s, American Campus Communities created a constraint against
the University at Buffalo when the University halted production of apartment complexes. This
led to American Campus Communities building complexes. If the institution decides to increase
enrollment, more apartment complexes are going to be needed. A solution to the issue could be to
purchase the apartment complexes from American Campus Communities. The complexes are
already built, furnished and staffed. The University would need to make a few adjustments to
make it more fitting for a University housing complex. This follows a direct partisan and
authorities theory. The authority, the University at Buffalo, ensures that they are the authority by
buying the constraint, the apartment complexes from the partisans, American Campus
Communities.
With any large decision such like this, several issues are present. If the University at
Buffalo buys out the American Campus Communities complexes, the University would be seen
as giving in to the partisans. Not to mention, the possible construction and maintenance that the

CAMPUS LIVING OR CAMPUS DYING

18

complexes need. As mentioned before, American Campus Communities constructed the new
apartment complexes quickly. Typically on the University at Buffalos campus, buildings are
created with a year plan. For instance, Greiner Hall, a sophomore residence hall, was recently
constructed with a 50-year plan. To accommodate this plan and ensure students are safe, Greiner
Hall was constructed with steel frames. American Campus Communities, from my own
observations, have not used steel frames and therefore the buildings have a low yearly plan. The
buildings might look strong on the outside but may have been made quickly and cheap on the
inside.
Wait it Out
Building on the previous point, the apartment complexes around the University at
Buffalos North Campus have been created quickly. The University at Buffalo could not address
the issue of off-campus apartment complexes. The short term plans of the apartment complexes
could be tested. If the buildings are not strong on the interior, the buildings will constantly need
to be maintained so students could live in the rooms. Over time, this will cost the off-campus
apartments large financial projects which the businesses might not be able to accommodate.
Since the complexes are constantly looking to maintain the status quo, according to institutional
theory, the constant upgrades will be short-lived and would not be able to function over a longterm time
The issue with this solution is power. Looking at the issue from a partisan and authorities
theory, the off-campus vendors are the ones in control of their own destiny. The University at
Buffalo will stand by and see how the off-campus vendors will handle long-term objectives. If
the off-campus vendors fail, the University at Buffalo has the advantage. On the other side, if the
off-campus vendors succeed, the University at Buffalo will now have a long-term issue with the

CAMPUS LIVING OR CAMPUS DYING

19

apartment complexes off-campus. Out of the three potential solutions, this has the most risk on
the University at Buffalo.
Symbiotic Relationship with American Campus Communities
In institutional theory, perceived choice of control of the environment is low. If the
perceived choice is high, a symbiotic relationship is created (Bess & Dee, 2008). The University
at Buffalo can create a deal with American Campus Communities. American Campus
Communities are continually attempting to be similar to the University at Buffalo. The
University at Buffalo could provide resources to American Campus Communities such as high
speed Internet, safety and entertainment. In exchange, the University at Buffalo could advertise
the complexes as part of the Universitys housing. The University could provide resources while
American Campus Communities could provide the apartments. Contracts could state that the
upkeep and maintenance is under the American Campus Communities side of the deal.
The downside would be that the University might not have the same philosophies as
American Campus Communities. The partnership would be beneficial to both organizations
which is a quality of a symbiotic relationship. Potentially, the University might have some issues
with certain amenities, such as tanning beds and pools, because of the potential negative side
effects on a persons health. American Campus Communities might not want to be under the
strict coercive conformity policies of the state that the University at Buffalo must adhere to. This
solution would be more complicated than any other solution. The potential for each organization
to better each other could be an example for the Town of Amherst. By the University working
with American Campus Communities, it would set a precedent for the Town of Amherst that the
University at Buffalo is looking to better the town and surrounding area by creating partnerships.
Apartment complexes provide a financial aspect to any town due to the consumers that the

CAMPUS LIVING OR CAMPUS DYING

20

complex houses. With University at Buffalo students in the Town of Amherst, local businesses
could be started that students could utilize.
Conclusion
The University at Buffalo is a strong force in the economic and social growth in the areas
where the University is located. The Universitys presence in the Town of Amherst has been
short lived in comparison to the city of Buffalo. The completion of off-campus apartment
complexes in the Town of Amherst has increased the commercial business in the area. Offcampus apartment complexes will increase in the future around the University at Buffalos North
Campus. With this increase, the University at Buffalo will have to choose how to act. Using
institutional theory and partisans and authorities, the University at Buffalo can decide to take
action or not in order to solve it. The actions of President Greiner and Simpson lead to the
development of the issue and can be explained through partisans and authorities and institutional
theories. The Office of Campus Living can continue on the path that is set in front of them by
ignoring the issue. As mentioned before, this is has the most risk. To really enhance both the
Office and American Campus Communities a partnership is needed. The decision of a
partnership between the University at Buffalo and American Campus Communities is in the
Universitys court.

References

CAMPUS LIVING OR CAMPUS DYING

21

Bess, J. L., & Dee, J. R. (2008). Understanding college and university organization: Theories for
effective policy and practice (Vols. 1-2). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Campus Living. (n.d.). Retrieved April 26, 2015, from http://www.ubhousing.buffalo.edu/futurerates.php
Henderson, H. D. (1922). Supply and demand (Vol. 1). London: Nisbet & Company Limited.
National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Retrieved April 28, 2015, from
http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?id=196088#enrolmt
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of
research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Boss
University Village at Sweethome. (n.d.). Retrieved April 26, 2015, from
http://uvsweethome.com/floorplans