Housing for the 21st Century
If the University were truly welcoming of all sexual preferences and associations, then "gender-neutral" housing would be an appropriate next step. Gender-neutral housing would make for a more welcoming campus environment for all students as well as recognize that the current social norm for many unmarried men and women is to live with members of the opposite sex.
The University has espoused its commitment to support students of all sexual orientations on campus as well as to increase residential housing options. Providing gender-neutral housing, though a radical change in policy, would not require serious restructuring of the existing room-draw system. Logically, there is no reason why mixed gender draw groups could not select a room together, just as they are now free to draw together in a group. Single-gender halls and entryways could continue to be drawn as they are now.
Princeton's notable lack of off-campus housing makes it particularly difficult for interested students to avoid the University's housing regulations. Students of all orientations are hard-pressed for alternatives to the system. It may be true that few students have expressed the desire for gender-neutral housing, but it need not be, and indeed is unlikely to become, a widespread phenomenon. In the meantime, the needs of even a handful of students deserve to be met on campus.
Furthermore, allowing couples to draw rooms together is not against current University policy. The current policy allows gay students in a relationship to live together. To defend gender-segregated housing with the argument that gender-neutral housing is potentially harmful to heterosexual couples is to undermine the value and legitimacy of gay relationships. This is surely not what the University hopes to accomplish.
Providing gender-neutral housing to freshmen is more complicated and should not be immediately implemented. One of the crucial aspects of the policy we propose is that students of any gender identity who choose to live with each other would make the decision together and trust each other enough to agree to the arrangement. These types of relationships cannot be formed before freshman year.
Gender-neutral housing is an easy step the University can take toward breaking down sexual stereotypes on campus. Such a policy would give students more options and make for more comfortable housing arrangements for the many students who want to live with their friends of the opposite sex or who do not define themselves by traditional social norms.
Digg it!
Share on Facebook
Post to Del.icio.us
Seed Newsvine
Thanks for the article, it's just so silly that P doesn't allow girls and boys to share an apartment. Uuuu! I think it's worth remembering that not *all* gender-neutral housing arrangements will be for couples: I wanted to room with friends (both female and male) in Spelman next year, but, of course, didn't even give it a serious thought. I also gave up writing to housing about this issue. For non couples, there's no reason to believe there'd be any of the so called "bureaucratic concerns", and besides I think what is more important than these concerns is that this old-fashioned rule is incompatible with the non-discriminatory positions held by the U... They have smart people in the administration, they'll figure out a way (or look elsewhere to see how to do it) of handling couples breaking up in the middle of the year... this shouldn't be a reason to question whether gender-neutral housing has to be done or not, but rather an issue to be solved after we all agree that we have to have gender-neutral housing...
Any neutral reader can see that neither of these people have "judged gender-neutral housing more harm than good". In fact, it's clear that they hope it would cause more good than harm. I mean, they clearly support the idea in principle. They're simply remarking about a single issue on the other side of the argument--one that is worthy of consideration, even if you ultimately decide, as I have, that the pros of gender-neutral housing outweigh the cons. All institutions constantly have to consider things that are essentially hard to compare: "How much two people want to live together", for instance, versus a legitimate (yes, legitimate) bureaucratic concern. Or making people feel free to use library and dining hall services at their leisure versus setting limits on usage in consideration of staffing, maintenance and the financial planning. Or providing people the opportunity to take whatever courses they'd like versus class limits so that professors can foster effective learning environments. It's fearfully naive to say that these issues clearly break one or the other, depending on which side happens to align most with our self-interest. I think it's flatly wrong to say that to consider bureaucracy is to treat people like children by belittling their ability to make rational choices for themselves. In fact, I'd hope that in a progressive institution like ours, we'd have an administrative culture that doesn't see the patrons of university services as more important than the staff who serve them. In this light, I think the prudent rebuttal to the "pragmatists" concerns is an easy. Just point to evidence from other universities that this change hasn't overwhelmed their housing departments. I think that's a response that values everybody equally and gets to the core of the particular argument. It's certainly better than "This is how I want to be treated and I don't give a s--t about how it potentially affects (or 'annoys') anyone else". Doesn't that sentiment simply invert what underlies the current problem that the university's current housing policy doesn't seem to give a s--t about people who want to cohabit? I, like P'08, disagree with the "pragmatists". But I applaud them as well. Making an intellectualy honest attempt to consider both sides of an argument is what we're taught to do here.