Colleges often have co-ed dorms and floors, but even in these each room will have members of only one sex. Colleges that allow coed dorm rooms are much less common than those that don’t. However, not everyone is comfortable rooming with someone of the same sex. There are many students who, for a variety of reasons, are disadvantaged by the practice of segregating dorm rooms by sex. Because the practice of sexual segregation in student housing at colleges does not meet the needs of all students, it should be phased out in favor of more gender-neutral housing options. In this paper, we will use gender-neutral housing to refer to the addition of a housing option which students can choose, where there are no restrictions on rooming based on either gender or sex, leaving the students free to decide their own housing arrangements.
There are a large variety of sexualities. The most commonly known are heterosexual and homosexual. Others include bisexual, pansexual, asexual, sapiosexual, and so on. Current estimates show that approximately 3.5% of the population identifies as homo- or bisexual (Gates, 2011). Despite this, it is the only sexuality traditionally recognized, and as a result, university housing has been developed solely to satisfy it. Due to this, the existing single-sex paradigm fails to meet the needs of those who have different sexualities.
First, one common argument against gender-neutral housing is that it is a bad idea to have people who are sexually attracted to each other living together. However, if this is true, then it is a bad idea to have, for example, a homosexual person living with someone of the same sex, while an asexual would have no restrictions regarding their living situation. This notably excludes bisexuals, who are sexually attracted to both males and females, and pansexuals, who are attracted to everyone, regardless of sex. They would be unable to find a housing solution without sexual attraction.
Ultimately, even if we accept the premise that sexual attraction is bad in housing, the argument still fails, due to a simple assumption that it makes: that all people of a sexuality are attracted to all people in their target group, e.g., that all homosexuals are attracted to all people of the same sex, that all pansexuals are attracted to everyone, and so on. However, even in this case, many people don't want to live with people of their target group, due to either sexual attraction or the potential for the same, and would feel highly uncomfortable. “Universities reported that many LGBT students felt more comfortable rooming with a member of the opposite sex” (Willoughby 2012). One necessary trait of on-campus housing is that students feel comfortable in it. Single-sex housing clearly fails to meet this for everyone, and as a result, it doesn’t necessarily meet the needs of non-heterosexual people.
Gender orientation generally poses similar problems. Many of the same arguments apply. For example, sexual attraction could be an issue when a transgender person is transitioning. Furthermore, transgender people may be most comfortable with people of the gender they identify as. Providing that the other person is comfortable with it, there is little reason to not try to ease the already difficult transition. One attempt that could be made to alleviate this would be to house students by male/female gender, rather than sex. While a better solution, it still ties into the gender binary. In addition to cisgender and transgender, there are many other orientations: gender-neutral, fluid, etc. Simply classifying based on gender isn't sufficient to create an environment that everyone is necessarily comfortable in. It is also a difficult solution for transgender people, as it requires them to formally declare an orientation, which may be uncomfortable. Therefore, we are not proposing a special accommodation for those who identify as non-cisgender heterosexual, which would require formal declaration. Rather, we are proposing housing without restriction based on either sex or gender.
It is worth noting that none of these objections will necessarily apply to all non-hetero/cis- people, since there is wide variance in both the sexual/gender identities and the individuals. What they are comfortable with can’t be predicted solely from the simple label of their identity. Ultimately, the major objection to single-sex housing is that it removes the ability to choose what housing solution will best suit one’s needs.
And, finally, for both sex and gender, single sex housing continues to enforce the cisgender, heterosexual norm. There are several ways that this happens. First, the heterosexual norm is what single-sex housing was designed to support. Other identities are necessarily devalued, by their lack of inclusion in the design of the system and the hardships that are placed on them. Second, by creating a homogenous environment, single-sex housing discourages exploration, an important stage for many people. Establishing and valuing a norm, and more importantly not providing examples of anything outside the norm, makes it more difficult for anyone who doesn’t fit that norm to break out. As Smith and Kimmel write, “[the norm] is deployed coercively against gender-nonconforming men and comparatively to maintain socially created differences between women and men as natural and therefore legitimate“ (Smith 1831). As such, the gender bounds become that much stricter. The schools that have made gender-neutral housing recognize these failures. However, at this point, very few colleges have done so. Additionally, it is primarily confined to liberal arts colleges. As such, there is still obviously a long way to go on fixing the problem and providing housing that provides for everyone.
Sexually segregated housing does not meet the needs of cisgender and heterosexual students. An argument for sexually segregated housing is that it is more appropriate for the needs of the majority, but this is not the case. There may be cisgender students that would like to live with students of the opposite sex. For this reason, sexually segregated housing is already a problem. To fully determine whether sexually segregated housing is best for the majority you must examine the arguments against integrated housing. Concerns about sexual harassment and a violation of privacy are at the forefront of the arguments for sexually segregated housing.
There is an argument that sexual segregation is beneficial for student housing because it will reduce the rates of sexual harassment. This argument does a disservice towards the majority of students as it implies that men are dangerous and cannot be put in the same living space as women, and that women are unable to decide who is safe for them to be around. This must be implied as it is not allowed on many college campuses for individuals to live with students of the opposite regardless of their desire to do so. Safety and privacy violations can happen in any housing arrangements. So segregated housing can foster violence by implying that violence only happens in “dangerous” situations. To argue that sexually segregated housing is necessary for this reason makes assumptions about the students and human nature in general. This assumption can be seen in a case reviewed by Smith and Kimmel. In the case a male student makes a speech which has a lot of sexual content. The court rules against the student’s right to free speech on the basis of protective female students. This “decision may be offensive to some women who feel that they need no protection from lewd and lascivious descriptions of male sexuality” (Smith 2005, 1843). This case also implies that all men like lewd sexuality. The same offense may be taken in the case of forced sexual segregation in housing at universities. A violation of privacy is a similar argument to the argument as sexual harassment. It implies that students cannot respect the privacy of other students, and that a violation of privacy from an individual in the opposite sex is more harmful than a violation of privacy from an individual from the same sex.
Ultimately the best option for the majority, including cisgender and heterosexual students is to allow them to make their own decisions. This will allow students to make their own rooming choices thus the responsibility lies with the student and not the university to protect the safety and privacy of the students. Choice should satisfy the majority of students as it would allow students to either live sexually segregated or with students of the opposite sex. The only reasonable issue this would cause would be potential complaints from students who have issues with students living with the opposite sex living in their vicinity. This would be the minority case, and there may be ways of preventing this altogether. Universities can maintain separate buildings or floors as long as they give students options.
The strongest argument against gender neutral housing is that it may create logistical problems for those responsible for college residences. Proponents of this argument claim that, since single-sex housing is good enough, the colleges’ convenience would then outweigh the preferences of the students. Universities already have established systems in place to handle the process of rooming assignments, and any change to this system will cost the university money. Additionally, the availability of gender neutral housing will likely appeal to heterosexual couples looking to live together. Studies have shown that young couples living together is “linked to numerous negative couple and individual outcomes” (Journal of Adolescent Research, p745). Any instability between a heterosexual couple living together will likely require intervention by school residential services. Many schools may see these potential issues as a strain on resources.
While this change in university policy may disrupt existing university workflows, existing policies do not meet the needs of existing students and reconciling these issues should be a priority. Some students may not feel comfortable living with members of the same sex. With on-campus housing being a fundamental part of the college lifestyle, universities should be willing to accommodate this type of lifestyle. Additionally, some logistical issues caused by gender-neutral housing may be countered by some simplicity afforded by these policies. Providing gender-neutral housing gives students more options for housing. As we have established that single-sex housing actually fails to meet needs, not just failing to meet preferences, this must take precedence over convenience for the school.
Further, most of the objections on practicality can be easily eliminated. For example, couples living together can be weeded out by requiring an interview, as some colleges with gender neutral housing do (Willoughby 2012). The complexity of figuring out who would be willing to live with the opposite sex isn't an issue if it’s not an option for freshman, because sophomores and above generally choose who they’ll live with. People being uncomfortable with shared-sex bathrooms isn’t a concern in suites, since the bathroom is generally single person, and not shared with anyone outside of the suite. These are just examples, and full discussion of implementation falls outside this paper. However, it shows that the most important practical objections that are generally raised to gender-neutral housing are fairly simply countered, and thus shouldn't restrict it.
The practice of sexual segregation in student housing at colleges should be phased out, because it does not meet the needs of all of the students. An important goal in providing on-campus housing to students is to provide them with a safe and comfortable place for them to live. Single-sex housing was often enforced because colleges traditionally did not want students to be rooming with someone they may be sexually attracted to. However, this does not take non-heterosexual students into account, some of whom may be more comfortable rooming with someone of a different sex than what they would be assigned. Single-sex housing also fails to accommodate the needs of non-cisgendered people, as they may feel more comfortable rooming with someone of the gender they identify as or a close friend rather than someone of their sex. Even cisgender, heterosexual students can feel more comfortable rooming with members of the opposite sex than with members of their own sex. In all of these cases, enforcing single-sex rooms takes freedom of choice away from students, and can keep them from the rooming in the situations that would be best for their comfort and their academic pursuits. Therefore, colleges that care about the needs of their students should work towards adopting gender-neutral housing options.
Bibliography:
Gates, Gary J. 2011. How many people are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender? The Williams Institute. Web.
Smith, Tyson and Michael Kimmel. 2005. The hidden discourse of masculinity in gender discrimination law. Signs 30 (3): 1827-1850.
Willoughby, Brian J., Jason S. Carroll, William J. Marshall, and Caitlin Clark. The Decline of In Loco Parentis and the Shift to Coed Housing on College Campuses. Journal of Adolescent Research 24 (2009): 21-36. Web.
Willoughby, Brian J., Jeffrey K. Larsen, and Jason S. Carroll. The Emergence of Gender-Neutral Housing on American University Campuses. Journal of Adolescent Research 27 (2012): 732-50. Print.
Willoughby, Brian J., Jeffrey K. Larsen, and Jason S. Carroll. The Emergence of Gender-Neutral Housing on American University Campuses. Journal of Adolescent Research 27 (2012): 732-50. Print.
