In fall 2005, the university enrolled 4,260 freshmen after originally intending to enroll 4,050. In 2004, there were 4,035 freshmen enrolled. In 2003, just 3,937. The increasing enrollment, however, didn’t seem to worry university officials.

In The Diamondback’s September 2005 story covering the increase, titled “University can handle extra students,” the impact of the extra enrollment on the university was deemed “negligible” by then-provost Bill Destler. In the story, Destler is quoted as saying, “We were not unhappy to see an extra 200 freshmen. With increased tuition revenue from these students, we had more money to accommodate them.”

But now, as reported Friday by The Diamondback’s Nathan Cohen and Lindsay Kalter, the university is concerned with enrollment numbers. After saying last week that at least 386 (and possibly more than 1,000) current sophomores will not get on-campus housing next year, officials attempted to answer questions on how they are addressing the problem by saying they will enroll 100 fewer freshmen and 100 fewer transfer students next year than they did this year.

To recap: In 2005, an enrollment increase of more than 200 students wasn’t deemed a big deal. This year, an enrollment decrease of 200 students is university officials’ only answer to date for a massive housing shortage. It seems 200 is a number they are willing to throw around.

But the real number to be dealt with isn’t 200 – it’s 1,000. And just because, as pointed out by Provost Nariman Farvardin in Friday’s story, 200 fewer students for the next five years will mean a “reduction” of 1,000 students eventually, it doesn’t mean that this approach is worth much in dealing with the realities of the current housing crisis.

In fact, the answer to the housing shortage can’t be found in enrollment numbers at all. As university officials were so keen on pointing out in 2005, a couple hundred students don’t mean much in the grand scheme of things.

The answer to the housing shortage is more housing. A bizarre notion, isn’t it?

University officials are never going to solve the housing problem by twiddling around with enrollment numbers. They could solve it with more housing, though. More housing now, that is, as opposed to years down the road.

The fact that university officials still have not rolled out a comprehensive plan to house students for the long term is a slap in the face to all the students ousted from on-campus housing. State Sen. Jim Rosapepe is so angry about it, he even plans to introduce legislation that would force university administrators to come up with a plan rather than play their usual ignore-the-problem-and-maybe-it’ll-go-away game.

Now, it’s also a slap in the face to those 200 students who may have been accepted to this university were it not for the failure of its officials to build some beds.

So the University Senate will cut enrollment. So what? What good does that do besides give administrators a crutch to lean on when angry students and parents ask them what they are doing to fix the housing problem?

It seems a redundant message in this space, but one that apparently is not getting through: Plan ahead. Build housing. Stop forcing students into low-quality city housing that angers residents and creates bad blood with the city council.

It’s the administration’s responsibility. They’ve failed miserably at it so far. So fix it.