When I decided to attend the University, I knew from the beginning I wanted to live in the residence halls, despite the fact that I am from Eugene and could easily have rented an apartment with friends or stayed at home with my parents. No, it wasn’t because I relished the thought of sharing two toilets with 20 other young-adult males for nine months. It was because I hoped the experience would be instrumental in my growth and maturation as a newly out, 18-year-old gay male. And this is why I’m skeptical of University Housing’s announcement of the creation of a separate “gender-neutral” residence hall next year.
The idea for the hall, which will be located in Wing B of Carson Hall and have the capacity to house approximately 20 students, came from listening to requests from students who expressed a desire to live with the roommate of their choosing, said Assistant Director of Student Life Chicora Martin.
The idea of gender-neutral or inclusive housing is a good one. It’s progressive and recognizes that not everyone fits the heterosexist construct of gender binaries. It also recognizes college students as adults who should be allowed to make the informed decision to live with someone of a different sex or gender identity if they desire.
The idea is also largely promoted as a way to provide a better environment for LGBTQ students, by allowing them to live with students they know and are comfortable with, or who share similar orientations or preferences. But while that sounds good in theory, it presents the very reason I have a problem with gender-neutral halls, at least in the way they have been proposed here at the University.
To group together in a designated area all the students who resist traditional gender binaries – for whatever reason – simply marginalizes them further, and perpetuates the idea of them as “other.” Gender-inclusive housing is supposed to break down gender binaries and create a welcome environment for all students. But to segregate this “welcome environment” to only one specific location completely defeats the purpose of social progress and acceptance. True, it might make life in the residence halls a little more comfortable for a select few students, but it does so by strengthening the division between those who conform to heterosexist norms and those who don’t.
Instead of a designated hall or section of a hall, every hall should provide a gender-inclusive option. On the housing application, students could choose to indicate their own sex and gender identification, and those with which they prefer to live. At the very least, they should have the option of living with the person of their choosing without being forced to live in only one place.
Some argue this will increase the likelihood of sexual assault against women. The Dartmouth College administration identified sexual assault as a possible hazard before gender-neutral housing was instated there in 2007, according to a May 2006 article by Alexandra Dibranco in the Dartmouth Free Press. But this argument is only belittling to women’s ability to make informed decisions about their own safety.
“A woman who opts to live with a man is going to choose someone she can trust, whether her relationship with him is platonic or sexual,” wrote Dibranco. In my opinion, co-ed rooming would more likely improve gender relations by increasing openness and awareness of sexual and gender differences, and possibly even reduce the incidence of sexual assault.
Others worry that putting males and females together would only lead to sexual relationships between the two, leading to problems when couples break up and are forced to either continue living together or switch rooms. There are multiple problems with this argument: First, it operates under the heterocentric assumption that roommates of the same gender do not have sex or form relationships with each other. Second, it’s not the responsibility of the University to regulate this in the first place.
“Two women or two men who choose to live together are not questioned about the nature of their relationship, and we believe that requiring students who apply for gender-neutral housing to explain their relationship is intrusive and unfair,” says the Campus Life Web site for Connecticut College, which announced its decision to provide its students with gender-neutral housing options earlier this year.
At Connecticut College, there is no specific floor or building for students who choose the gender-neutral housing option – the option is available in any of the college’s traditional or themed residence halls or on-campus apartments. “It is important that gender-neutral housing be another option for students, and not one that isolates individuals or severely limits their housing,” says the Web site.
This, in my opinion, is the model University Housing here at the University should follow. Instating gender-neutral housing is a significant action toward gender acceptance and equality, and doing so in just one wing of one hall is at least a step in the right direction. But if the University is truly dedicated to improving the quality of life for all students, it should not be the last step.
[email protected]