Once, many years ago, when the only women to be seen on Princeton's campus were dates bussed in from Bryn Mawr and Barnard, the University enforced a practice known as parietals. Women were forbidden to be in dormitories past 9 p.m. on weeknights and 12 a.m. on weekends. Thankfully, the University has progressed since then. Women were first admitted to the University in the fall of 1969, and in the past 36 years we've seen the dorms, the eating clubs and even the office of 1 Nassau Hall lost their "Boys Only" status. Yet, one area of student life remains sexist today: housing. Unless married, an undergraduate may not share a room or suite with a member of the opposite sex.
I believe that the University's prohibition on cohabitation is as antiquated and futile as its practice of parietals was in the '60s. As a society, we've moved beyond the narrow gender stereotyping of the past that held men and women to be too dissimilar to be friends unless they were romantically involved. Today, we have good friends of both genders. When freed of the confines of the orange bubble, many of us make the decision to live with our friends of the opposite sex. Over the summer, we stayed in the same dilapidated hotel rooms as we drove across the country, we lived under one roof when we spent weekends at the shore and we shared apartments and townhouses during our New York or D.C. internships. For our generation, friendships depend more on the content of a person's character rather than on the similarity of their chromosomal makeup.
By permitting each student to choose his or her roommates from the largest possible pool, the University would increase the number of students who are happy with their living arrangement. In general, the University recognizes that its students have different beliefs about what their own ideal housing situation would be. Single-sex areas are available for those who feel most comfortable living in that environment, regardless of whether it is for cultural reasons or merely personal preference. So, why not honor the personal preferences of those Princetonians who would most like to live with their friends of the opposite sex?
It might be argued that if the ban on cohabitation were revoked, then Princeton students would abuse the privilege by choosing to live with their boyfriends or girlfriends. I think that this is akin to a proponent of parietals in the 1960's arguing that if parietals were revoked, then Princeton students would have more sex: It may be true, but is it necessarily a bad thing? Yes, some students might choose to live with an individual that they're in a relationship with, and there's always the possibility that relationship will end. However, it is already possible for gay and lesbian students to live with people that they're romantically involved with, and what do we see? Not many choose to do it. The overwhelming majority of Princeton students are sensible enough to understand the pressures involved in living with a boyfriend or girlfriend. If cohabitation were allowed, few would select it for romantic reasons. Moreover, I see no difference between a couple who share a double and then break up and two best friends who share a double then have a fight. In both instances, Princeton students can be held accountable for their housing decisions, and they can be trusted to find a solution to their problems in a mature and responsible manner.
Once, the University considered every woman to be an Eve-like temptress who would snare an unwary young Tiger in her trap unless the administration stepped in and suspended those who would dare have a coed sleepover. Since those days, we have seen legally recognized distinctions between the sexes fade away, while the privileges and responsibilities given to the undergraduate student body have multiplied. The next step along the path to equality between man and woman and student and administrator is to allow cohabitation. When every student can choose to live with his or her friends regardless of their gender, the housing process will finally be fair, and the students, having been given the most possible choices, will be able to make the best decisions for themselves. Jason Sheltzer is a sophomore from St. Davids, Pa. He can be reached at sheltzer@Princeton.edu.
Read More
It’s time to step it up on diversity and inclusion
Christofer RoblesOver the last five years, Princeton never achieved parity in diversity and inclusion for Black students. Now, the University faces a conservative culture and federal government hostile to anti-racism. Now, more than ever, Princeton cannot abandon its students.
Over the last five years, Princeton never achieved parity in diversity and inclusion for Black students. Now, the University faces a conservative culture and federal government hostile to anti-racism. Now, more than ever, Princeton cannot abandon its students.
Class of 2029: Reject selective views of free speech
Charlie Yale and Siyeon Lee"Let us make an appeal to the entire Class of 2029: You can care about viewpoint diversity and free expression even if you don’t read the Tory. As liberals and progressives, you can understand that free speech is an issue that affects everyone."
"Let us make an appeal to the entire Class of 2029: You can care about viewpoint diversity and free expression even if you don’t read the Tory. As liberals and progressives, you can understand that free speech is an issue that affects everyone."
For a more effective USG, train newly elected members on the bureaucracy
Luqmaan BambaFor student representatives to make the change we can through the systems we have, we need a more onboarding process that prepares us to navigate these byzantine processes.
For student representatives to make the change we can through the systems we have, we need a more onboarding process that prepares us to navigate these byzantine processes.