This article is written by a sponsor of the current Co-Ed Housing Initiative

Dartmouth Office of Residential Life Residential Education Principles
Analyze and Synthesize information and experiences
Examine personal identity
Value people
Commit to scholarship and social responsibility
Engage in transformation learning

The above statement, taken from the ORL website, outlines the educational principles of residential life at Dartmouth. Supporters of co-ed rooming at Dartmouth believe that having members of the same sex reside in co-ed rooming situations will further these educational values.

The current dorm policy on campus assumes that all students are heterosexual and therefore should live with members of the same sex. It forces all students to live under heterosexual standards, and thus sends the message that only heterosexual relationships are worth protecting. It totally ignores the fact that homosexual relationships and even assault are a reality. Therefore, a more inclusive policy would allow for students to live with members of the opposite sex.

The Diversity Affairs Committee of the Student Assembly has crafted a proposal encouraging the Office of Residential Life to allow co-ed rooming arrangements in the senior apartments, a number of two room doubles in East Wheelock, and suites in the new Maynard Cluster. These housing options would be open to sophomores, juniors, and seniors and would require an application similar to those currently used for affinity houses and East Wheelock. Because the process would be completely voluntary, no students would be forced to live in these co-ed arrangements. Furthermore, to accommodate complications in housing due to the D-plan, these co-ed designated rooms could become single-sex dorms if necessary. For example, a woman returning from an off-term, would not be randomly placed in a dorm with all males.

The current discussion in the Dartmouth community about hazing and inappropriate behavior has raised awareness about the hyper-gendered social spaces on our campus such as fraternities and sororities. We are now realizing that social spaces dominated by a single sex can lead to problems like sexual harassment and disrespect for the opposite sex. Co-ed rooming will help resolve these issues, because it will create gender-neutral spaces and facilitate responsible interactions between men and women.

Also, this type of residential model has been successful at schools such as Haverford, Wesleyan, Hampshire, and Swarthmore. At these schools, students in relationships are not the primary users of this residential program, which proves that the goal is more about improving interactions between men and women on campus. Similarly, co-ed rooming at Dartmouth would fulfill the residential-educational goals of “examining personal identity,” “value[ing] people,” and “commit[ting] to scholarship and social responsibility.” If the college thinks that the current policy is protecting women from making incorrect residential choices, then co-ed rooming will only prove that men and women can cohabitate responsibly while respecting each other as people.

Opponents have raised questions about this type of residential program increasing the number of sexual assaults on campus. First, I would like to emphasize that living in a co-ed situation would be voluntary, and students would be choosing their roommates. Why would a woman or a man choose to room with a member of the community who is going to be harmful?

Another common argument against co-ed rooming is that by allowing for these accommodations, we are further segregating minority communities. These arguments, most of which point an accusing finger at affinity houses, are incorrect. In the same way that one does not have to be a minority to live in an affinity house, one would not have to be gay to live in a co-ed room. Also, because our campus is mostly white and heterosexual, it is important for minorities to have social spaces where they feel comfortable. I do not understand why anyone would argue against communities with common interests coming together and sharing their experiences and challenges in a setting where they are a minority.

Also, opponents might categorize this policy change as a simple accommodation, arguing that it will lead to people complaining about living with people of a different race or different background. But, the fact is that after freshman year, ORL accommodates these requests already because students can choose their roommates and living arrangements. The current policy is biased because it will not let students choose to live with members of the opposite sex, even if that is the most comfortable living arrangement for them.

When Dartmouth went co-ed in 1974, many were opposed to women and men learning together at our campus because they thought it would change the conservative, masculine image of our college. I believe most of the opposing arguments to co-ed rooming are of a similar fashion. They either insist on upholding the current “norm,” or they raise logistical issues. These arguments are not strong enough to support a policy that makes assumptions about the greater campus population. As co-ed learning improved the interaction between men and women, co-ed rooming will have similar effects.