To tell you the truth, most of my opinions are gut calls rather than the product of deep thought and lengthy deliberation. This was surely the case when it came to the co-ed housing initiative recently endorsed by Student Assembly. Maybe it’s my inner-conservative talking, but I simply feel uncomfortable with the idea that the current policy is somehow “heterosexist.” That’s not to say there isn’t some logic lurking behind this seemingly arbitrary call. The truth is, even if you accept the fact that the current same-sex housing policy is “heterosexist” and discriminatory against homosexual students, the policy promoted by SA can’t be enacted in any way that would eliminate this alleged discrimination.
According to members of the Student Assembly Diversity Affairs Committee – the sponsoring committee of the initiative – the co-ed housing option would be available on an application basis, much like those special housing programs already available on campus. A set number of rooms would be put aside in various dorms to belong to the program and applicants would vie for this space. Although ORL could theoretically match room availability to demand, such estimations are exceedingly difficult – especially given the current housing shortage. An application based process is therefore the only logical way to distribute co-ed rooms.
But this approach fails to recognize that the rationale behind co-ed housing is drastically different than that of East Wheelock or any of the other special programs. East Wheelock is about benefits. Co-ed housing, alternatively, is about a student’s entitlement to basic comfort in his dorm room. When a student is not accepted for the East Wheelock program, he misses out on plush accommodations, free food, and Harry Potter lectures. But when a student is denied acceptance to the co-ed housing program due to lack of space, he is deprived of his newfound right to a roommate of the opposite sex.
But if I’m a gay male (or female), how can I ensure that I get this coveted co-ed space? A demonstration of need seems like a decent solution, but how can ORL judge this? Could I be deemed too comfortable around the same sex to earn housing priority? Would ORL need some proof of my sexuality? Would they make me take some online personality test just to make sure?
Granted, co-ed housing wouldn’t be available solely to gay men and women, but the language of the initiative clearly makes sexuality a chief concern. The supposed “heterosexist” nature of the current policy only is eliminated if some allowances are made for homosexuals within the co-ed housing policy. Simply put, there would have to be some preferential treatment involved.
Whatever the means of doling out co-ed rooms, any co-ed special housing program can’t accomplish its goal of eliminating the heterosexism of current College policy. On a campus with limited room availability, the only way to eliminate the alleged heterosexism of the current policy is to remove the gender component altogether from the housing process, opening up all rooms to any sex. But nobody is considering such a radical move, especially amidst the College’s current fund-raising drive. The co-ed housing proposal doesn’t put an end to discrimination within ORL policy; it merely shifts this discrimination into a special category of housing.
But even in an alternate universe where supply and demand for co-ed housing met harmoniously, the co-ed housing initiative wouldn’t necessarily be a good idea. For all its faults, the current housing policy at least draws a clear line in the sand. A male roommate simply doesn’t have to worry about rejecting potential female roommate on the basis of her sex alone. But a co-ed housing program injects the issue of gender into a situation where gender is essentially taken for granted. And if gender is legitimate grounds for rejecting a potential roommate, wouldn’t race, religion, sexuality and the like also be rationale for requesting a special living arrangement? Where would the College draw the line on appeasing demands for special housing? Clearly, the College would be amiss in opening up the Pandora’s Box to this kind of self-segregation. It’s too slippery a slope for a housing program rightfully dedicated not only to providing a comfortable room, but also to challenging the assumptions and biases of residents
Supporters of co-ed housing will inevitably compare this logic to that used in defense of same-sex education in the 1970s. But the co-ed housing situation is far from analogous. Co-education wasn’t about making a small minority more comfortable on campus; it was a harsh transition intended to challenge the masculine elitism of Dartmouth’s all-male population. And it worked. Gender relations have come a long way since the 1970s on this campus and co-education should get credit for that.
But to argue that allowing a small number of students to live with members of the opposite sex will totally transform gender-relations is bogus. Not only do many Dartmouth students already live in co-ed housing (in College subsidized off-campus housing or places like Tabard and Panarchy), but the current voluntary co-ed housing proposal doesn’t force any student to drop any biases he already has. There was plenty of discomfort during the institution of co-education. A program focused entirely on making a certain minority of students more comfortable simply doesn’t compare.
Thankfully, Dean Redman and the folks at ORL recognize this. The initiative’s supporters might have all the best intentions but they’re trying to achieve a lofty goal with limited means. Until a more feasible and equitable plan for co-ed housing emerges, the current system – despite all its flaws – will have to make due.
