An article that ran in The Brown Daily Herald (“Brown looks to other universities in its discussion of co-ed doubles,” Jan. 30) discussed the possibility that the University would implement “gender-neutral” dorms for upperclassmen. This would be a relatively drastic step for Brown to take, and the administration is looking to comparable schools to see how well their programs have functioned. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Cornell, and Columbia have no gender-neutral housing. Dartmouth’s policy (currently in its first year) is one “program floor” with co-ed doubles, combined with other co-ed suites and apartments that are required to have private lockable bathrooms and bedrooms. The University of Pennsylvania allows students to request gender-neutral housing and live with whomever they would like, but only one half of one percent of students do so. Brown has also been looking at Wesleyan, arguably the most “liberal” in their policy, which allows freshmen to choose gender-neutral housing as well, allowing young men and women who have never met each other to live in the same room. This fact is mentioned in the Herald article, but is remarkably impossible to find on Wesleyan’s Residential Life site; nowhere does it explicitly say that male and female freshmen may live in co-ed doubles.
If this kind of housing is so desired and “normal,” why can’t the phrase “freshman co-ed double” (or anything of its kind) be found on Wesleyan’s Residential Life site (trust me, I tried)? If gender-neutral doubles are so popular, then why does such a small contingency of Penn students choose to live in them? Of course, neither of these schools is Brown, but since Wesleyan is known to be even more socially liberal than Brown, and Penn is a fellow member of the Ivy League, we need to look to these schools as examples if we want to try to implement our own policy. It would seem that if this type of housing were desirable, it would be used and advertised more often. So why is Brown spending so much time and effort on it?
Additionally, there are already many opportunities for men and women (or any one who identifies as neither man nor woman) to live together that investigating this possible change is not worthwhile. Twenty percent of Brown’s housing is currently classified as “gender neutral” (such as suites and apartments with singles). Again, I realize that Brown is not Penn, but since less than one half of one percent of students choose to live in gender neutral housing there, it seems as if this issue could be dealt with on a case-by-case basis here.
Another possible concern was addressed by the Herald article: it cited the fact that under policies currently in place at other schools, there is no demonstrable increase in room-change requests when men and women are allowed to live together. This is all fine and good, but it should not be a consideration. The fact that it will not inconvenience the administration of residential issues is not a justification to implement a policy. For example, I’m sure if Residential Life suddenly announced that it would no longer do room inspections, it would save itself a lot of paperwork and tension, and students would be significantly happier. That does not make it a good idea. The article mentioned very little about the effect on the students. Brown has said the goal of this change would be to “house students in whatever configuration they can think of that best serves their comfort, safety, and well-being.” I don’t understand how this change would improve students’ safety, and it doesn’t seem abundantly clear that this “configuration” would add greatly to students’ comfort or well-being.
The strongest argument against co-ed doubles is probably the idea that it “enables” students to have active sex lives, and since sex and everything that comes with it (both biologically and emotionally) must be a university concern, the argument needs to be examined. It is almost certain that in most cases, allowing men and women to live together would increase sexual activity: there is no way around it, even accounting for the fact that men and women are not exclusively attracted to the opposite sex.
In that vein, a possible counter-argument that is made in supporting coed-doubles for allowing men and women to live in the same room is that some friends cannot possibly be romantically involved with each other, such as a homosexual male and a heterosexual female, or the fact that two women or two men could just as easily be romantically involved. Both of these statements are true, and one could take the position that since the two potential roommates cannot be involved with each other, it should not be a problem, or that single-gender doubles do not ensure chastity. However, these are not reasonable ways to approach the situation. Ensuring that roommates will not hook up is impossible for several reasons. It would, first of all, require students to disclose their sexual orientation to the University. Second, based solely on numbers, there are more straight men and women than there are people of any other sexual orientation, so grouping by gender makes sense. Third, it would be laughably easy for a student to lie on a form in order to live with whomever he or she would like to live. Finally, it would be, in fact, a form of discrimination, of which Brown clearly would not be a part.
Based on the policies of similar universities, as well as Brown’s history and common logic, there is really no reason to justify the expense of investigating or creating gender-neutral dorms, particularly co-ed doubles. The University has better ways to spend its time and money.
