Detailed report (pdf)

​

Villa: Yoshida Dormitory Times vol. 1 (pdf)

​

Yearly reports of the dormitory’s structural issues (pdf)

​

Plan of the old building: revised outline (pdf)

​

​

On Friday July 13, negotiations were held between the university authorities and the Yoshida Dormitory Committee. These were the first negotiations to take place between our two parties in three years. They were carried out according to the six conditions stipulated by Vice President Kawazoe in order to achieve “concrete and constructive discussion” between Yoshida Dormitory and the university. They were therefore undertaken in the style of “small group negotiations” rather than in the form of “group bargaining” which was used previously. 

​

“Discussion”, not “negotiation”

​

Vice President Kawazoe claimed that our meeting represented only a “discussion” rather than a “negotiation”. The Vice President therefore declared that the purpose of the meeting was not to bargain or make agreements, but simply to “listen to opinions”. However, this fact was never stipulated in the Vice President’s six conditions and our committee was therefore naturally under the impression that the university was genuinely willing to enter into constructive negotiations with us. The approach taken by the university shows no respect for the right of Yoshida students to have a say in our dorm’s future and has rendered the new round of meetings between our two parties completely useless. Vice President Kawazoe has wasted not only our time, but also his own. 

 

​

No genuine progress made towards making repairs to the dorm 

​

The main item on the agenda at the recent July 13 meeting was that of Yoshida Dormitory’s ageing problem. The Yoshida Dormitory Committee reiterated its proposal (first made in 2014) that large-scale repairs be undertaken on the old section of the dormitory according to the ‘Kyoto City Guidelines Regarding the Preservation of Historical Buildings’. We also submitted two new updated plans for how repairs could be carried out. In response, Vice President Kawazoe stated that he would ‘consider and give feedback’. When we asked for more detailed information about the process through which our plans for repairs might be considered and when we could expect to hear back from the university, the Vice President simply replied that the process was currently in the ‘consideration’ stage. In the past, we have accepted claims such as these from the university regarding their need to ‘consider’ our opinions, believing that it was best to be patient so as to move forward together with the university. However, the authorities have always inevitably rejected our plans on the grounds that they are ‘unclear’ or ‘confusing’ and we have therefore been forced to make modifications. The university has now been ‘considering’ the same basic plan for repairs to our dormitory for over three years and we cannot see how there could still be aspects that they find ‘unclear’ or ‘confusing’.  We believe that the university may have their own ideas about the future of Yoshida Dormitory and that they are deliberately delaying the consultation process with our committee so as to prevent us from fighting these plans.

​

​