In print | Published March 6, 2008

Housing Coordinator Liz Derickson ‘01 and the other members of the Housing Committee have recommended that both housing in Willets basement and the first floor of David Kemp be made gender-neutral to permit roommate pairs of any gender. In carrying the change in housing policy to its logical conclusion, they also recommended that the bathrooms in Willets basement and on the first floor of David Kemp become gender-neutral. We support the housing committee’s efforts to expand gender-neutral housing on campus, which would make college housing more accessible to all students, regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation. Yet, we feel that the administration should expand gender-neutral housing on campus even further. We are not advocating that all bathrooms should be gender-neutral, but rather that gender-neutral bathrooms should be accessible to all students and that gender-neutral housing be more widely available.

The committee’s recommendations were driven by a perceived shortage in gender-neutral housing options on campus. In theory, students who request gender-neutral housing can select rooms in Dana Second, Hallowell Second, Mary Lyon basement, Palmer Second, Pittenger Second, Roberts, Strath Haven, Wharton CD Second, Worth and Woolman, with gender-neutral bathrooms available on campus in Wharton CD, Worth/Lodges, PPR, Strath and Woolman, but the concentration of gender-neutral rooms off-campus conflicts with the college’s commitment to equal opportunity.

Gender-neutral housing is important to students who identify as gender queer because they should be free to choose a roommate regardless of their gender or the gender of their potential roommate. They should not be bound by a traditional definition of gender as defined by the standard housing policy. It is also important for students who identify as queer to be free to choose a roommate with whom they will be comfortable. If they are not comfortable living with someone of the same gender, they should have the option of living with someone else. They currently do in certain places, but there should be more options. Dana, Hallowell and other gender-neutral housing options should not be the exceptions to the rule; there should not be a rule. Finally, it is important that all students be free to choose any roommate. We are all adults and we should be trusted to make adult decisions. Once we graduate, there are no restrictions. Why should Swarthmore, of all institutions, impose them?

A traditional objection to the introduction of gender-neutral accommodations is that heterosexual students may experience discomfort if they are assigned to live in close proximity to queer or transgender students. Part of coming to college is getting exposed to new people, new ideas and unfamiliar living conditions. Neighbors who take advantage of the gender-neutral option will not harm anyone on the hall. If students feel this way, maybe a little exposure will not hurt them. Another traditional objection is that couples who are romantically involved will opt to live together. However, even now both queer and straight romantic couples can and do cohabitate. Nonetheless, we hope that romantically-involved students will know better than to risk potential drama by living together.

Some students, including survivors, have reasons for wanting to live on a gendered hall. These students object to gender-neutral housing on the grounds of perceived lack of safety around members of the opposite gender. Their concerns are legitimate, as safety is paramount to student housing. Thus, some gendered housing should remain for such students. Unless there is a dramatic increase in the demand for gendered housing, only Parrish, the third floor of Dana and Kyle should remain gendered. We feel that the college should try to make as many students as happy as possible when it comes to gender-neutral housing.

« RETURN TO OPINIONS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »