|
Point
Why We Should Have Gender Neutral Housing...
by Allison Horky |
Counterpoint
...And Why We Shouldn't
by Anya Nona |
This article is about housing - the inherent right to live as one desires to live.
Moreover, the University and Housing vows to protect this right within their halls and apartments in order to provide a safe and comfortable living environment. While my personal opinion on this matter motivates and propels me to organize in a way that will establish gender neutral housing at this institution, I believe that University Housing actually said it first. Let us break down the ‘Living at Michigan Credo’ as it supports the establishment of gender neutral housing. The Living at Michigan Credo declares:
The University of Michigan is a special place. It is an educational community designed to foster freedom of thought and unconventional, even uncomfortable, opinions.
If I close my eyes and imagine the 1970s, I can see men and women fighting about integrating West Quad. Lettireang women live in the same quarters as men matched the revolutionary sentiment of the time. My freshman year, I was neither bothered nor blown away by seeing half toweled boys come out of the room next to me on their way to the shower. We are adults; we’ve crossed that threshold.
The opinion that two people of different genders should be able to live with each other outside of a special arrangement might be unconventional and even uncomfortable for a Midwestern University. However, as University Housing states, we should not run nor hide from this notion. Rather, the Credo insists we should:
provide an environment conducive to inquiry, in which innovation and creativity are nurtured. Part of this openness to ideas is an acceptance and appreciation of diverse cultures from around the country and around the world— an allowance not only for people to be different, but recognition that such diversity is the vital core of University life.
In my five years living in the residence halls, three of which were spent as a Resident Advisor, I also came to value and appreciate the diversity that the University relentlessly praises. I understood that by being around, listening to, challenging, and having fun with people that experience the world differently than I do, I was becoming a better citizen of the world.
In addition, being on the Spectrum Student Advisory Board taught me to empathize and understand how differently transgender people experience Housing. The female-male binary that exists within society becomes problematic in Housing, where women only room with women and men only room with men. What if the person’s internal gender identity requires an external transition from a woman to a man or if they feel more comfortable with a gender expression that is somewhere along the gender continuum? Does the University allow a place for these individuals? Luckily, the Credo supports this type of gender discovery:
Many students use their college years to explore and develop their personal identity and values. We believe this exploration can best take place in an environment that is open to and respectful of individuals across the spectrum of human differences and distinctions.
My experiences have been mostly in line with these words, however, I’ve noticed the populations the Credo doesn’t satisfy. I once met a transgender person that had lived in Northwood in a single apartment. They expressed thanks that an arrangement could be made to provide them with safety and comfort, but also noted that there was some jealousy toward their friends living on central with roommates. And thus, the University calls on us, themselves and anyone else to take action:
It is the responsibility of every member of the Housing community, staff and students alike, to work to create and maintain such an environment. We pledge to work collectively to examine our values and conduct, and to question those values when they reflect an origin of fear, anger, or ignorance. Acts of bigotry are acts of hatred against us all, and they will not be condoned or tolerated.
It is hard for me to say it much better than this last passage does. In order for us to live fully and completely as the people we know that we should be on the inside, and deserve to be on the outside, we must all act in a way that fulfills and honors the University’s Non-Discrimination Statement – “[we] are committed to a policy of nondiscrimination and equal opportunity for all persons regardless of…sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression…”
I challenge each administrator, student, faculty, employee, leader, and member of this place we call home, our University of Michigan, to “provide an example of involved citizenship” (Credo). I would personally like to do as Housing instructs at the end of their Credo, and join them in “this affirmation of our common humanity.”
College: the start of a new era in a student’s life. This is also synonymous with new friends, partying, living away from home, and most of all, stress. The only way college could become more stressful your freshman year is finding out you will be living with someone of the opposite gender in a ten-foot by eight-foot dorm room. This takes the phrase “experimenting in college” to a whole new level.
Imagine a female freshman student walking into her dorm building, pink-flowered bedding with matching wall décor in tow, being told that she will be sharing a room with a football toting, ball-scratching guy. How will their room have the proper feng shui she had been imagining all summer if both roommates have such opposite styles? Not to mention the fact that her personals (ie. bras, makeup, and tampons) will be out for display every day all school year. As this new student thinks more and more about the situation, suddenly her excitement turns to anxiety and college dorm life is no longer a matter of comfort, but of concern.
Same-sex dorm rooms can actually be more fun and definitely are a more supportive environment for the LGBT community.
Maybe the most obvious issue with gender neutral housing is the fact that guys and girls of a sexually mature age could easily get sidetracked from focusing on schoolwork and grades and become obsessed with constantly trying to impress the other sex. Girls will be fully dressed and made-up at all hours of the day and students will find themselves lost in clouds of Axe spray from just walking down the hallways.
Gender neutral housing not only brings attention to these social problems, but also to health and safety issues. The age in which students enter college is one in which sexuality is still being explored and matured. To put hormonal teenagers fresh out of high school in such close quarters can be problematic with the natural ebb and flow of social and sexual interaction between males and females. Not to mention how awkward it would be to walk in on your roommate of another gender hooking up with his or her respective boyfriend or girlfriend.
There is also the question of whether or not having roommates of opposite genders is a safe environment. Not to say that having guys and girls living in the same building is unsafe, but in the same room could turn to more serious sexual problems, such as sexual harassment. Though there may not be any physical harassment happening, girls can become subject to “locker room talk” or vulgar and lewd talk from their male roommates, making the living quarters extremely uncomfortable and stressful for college girls. This type of harassment is also virtually impossible to talk to a Resident Advisor for immediate help, as it often comes in forms of passing comments, feelings and gossip. RAs often have little authority in room changes and enforcing U-M policy when there is no direct evidence.
Though the idea of having a co-ed dorm seems like the perfect place for dating opportunities, dating someone in your dorm is, unfortunately, a very bad idea. It’s kind of like living together after the first date, and there is no opportunity to get away from one another. Your private business suddenly becomes you entire hallway’s drama and, if you happen to break up, you’re forced to live together for the remainder of the school year.
Girls will be fully dressed and made-up at all hours of the day and students will find themselves lost in clouds of Axe spray from just walking down the hallways.
To be completely frank, same-sex dorm rooms can actually be more fun and definitely are a more supportive environment for the LGBT community. But the fact of the matter is that students will take advantage of the opportunity for the wrong reasons. This is unavoidable. Both males and females tend to be truer to themselves and to others when there are not people of the opposite gender around to impress or be cautious with. Freshman year of college is stressful enough, so the added pressure of living with the opposite sex only intensifies this hectic period.
Overall, co-ed dorms seem to be an overly stressful, distracting addition to the already chaotic college lifestyle. And for what? To be around the opposite sex more? Just take a walk to the Diag and people-watch instead. Gender neutral housing is not a necessary policy for U-M. The assertion that it will create a safer environment is unsubstantial compared to the damage it would cause. U-M already offers an inclusive space for people of all identities, and evidence against this will not be remedied by a housing policy that encourages uncomfortable quarters for residents.
About the Issue
Point author: Allison Horky is a graduate student in the School of Social Work and is co-chair of the Spectrum Center Student Advisory Board. She has been involved with the Gender Neutral Housing Campaign for some time now and is currently working on a report to be presented to the University’s Board of Regents.
Counterpoint author: Anya Nona is an associate professor of English at the University of Illinois. His most recent book, Milton and the Post-Secular Present, will be published by the Stanford University Press in Fall 2011.
Edited by: Tanya Rogovyk
Cover by: Rose Jaffe
| Share This: | Tweet |
You must be logged in to leave a comment.
22 Comments
Clearly people are out there who don’t fully understand the issue, and I think Anya’s article highlights the misconceptions out there. We should all help make sure that people understand the policy being discussed
Couldn’t agree more. But then, what is the real issue?
I think Matt’s thoughts below about separating the two groups of students sums it up pretty well
Does anyone know what this policy actually says?
I’m not sure why everyone is conflating gender-neutral housing with gender-blind housing. No one is suggesting that all incoming students be assigned a roommate with no regard to gender, just that options outside of same-sex housing should be available to those that feel uncomfortable in the current system. I’m frankly bewildered as to why Consider ran an article arguing against something no one is proposing.
I’m even more puzzled as to why Anya purported to write about an issue affecting transgendered students and then spent the entire article focused on straight, cisgendered women. Ignoring the fact that her doomsday scenarios of hallways filled with Axe spray and constantly made-up women are already a reality, Anya does not once consider the people actually voicing concerns about our current housing system. (I quite honestly wonder if Anya understood this week’s topic correctly, as she’s missed the mark so completely.)
Anya’s final claim, that “U-M already offers an inclusive space for people of all identities” would be laughable if it weren’t so offensive. She essentially waves away the voice of the transgendered community, telling them they already have it just fine and that their wants cannot compare to the trauma that would be endured by a freshman having to see her bras or tampons.
I’m deeply disappointed in Consider for running Anya’s article, which attacks an irrelevant, imaginary issue and fails to even do so convincingly.
Thank you.
Exactly my thoughts. Thank you!
I think Matt points out one of the most difficult questions to answer.
One of the big debates is, “what are the potential effects of removing a particular voice from the housing community?” My thought is that having a gender neutral option would not pull everyone with a particular viewpoint. Just as a collection of people in any group can have differing opinions, so will the collection of people wanting gender neutral housing. The same question could be asked of North Quad. What is the effect of having a particular residence hall focused completely on people who are studying world affairs and international relations?
I think that the difference between a group of people who want gender neutral housing from “other groups” wanting to live separately is that the selection criteria for housing doesn’t segregate other groups. Imagine if housing segregated people based on other identities. Only people of the same race, religion, sexuality, social economic status, etc were required to live together. I imagine that some people would be uncomfortable at this notion, and might want to live in a room that allowed for common interest instead of common social identities.
That takes it a little too far, so another question is, “which is more important: the presence of a viewpoint in the residence halls that does not follow the dominant narrative, or the physical and emotional safety of a student who does not fit in the dominant narrative?” I don’t want to minimize the losses of LGBT youth in the past few months by using them in this discussion, but their deaths are indicators of a problem more serious than the presence or absence of worldview variety in the halls. Especially given a randomly assigned housing system, one can not know how the particular residence hall community will respond to someone who doesn’t fit into many people’s narrow view of “acceptable worldview variety.” I think that most people, especially at UM, are able to understand and identify with people from many backgrounds, but the experience of Tyler Clementi is just one example of students who were not able to understand his worldview. The result was the loss of Tyler’s input in his residence hall community. I’d much rather have someone’s viewpoint removed from a residence hall and have that person still be alive than have it removed as a result of death or cultural suppression.
Of course, there is much more responsibility put on the university when it comes to pairings, which I imagine is why UM chooses to randomly assign rooms to incoming freshman.
Anya, I appreciate that you put some time into identifying a few potentially applicable issues that might arise if housing used a completely random resident placement system that did not segregate rooms by gender. As others have noted, the most practical and potential implementation of gender neutral housing would probably be an opt-in system reserved for students with reason to desire such a situation.
I am glad both of these articles were written, and I’m glad there is finally some discussion about it!
If there was an interview process before a student could live in GNDs, would that solve many of the oppositions concerns?
Perhaps; but what would the conditions be? Would some students be uncomfortable answering questions as to why they, for lack of a better word, deserve to be granted GNH? Should they have the right to privacy?
I would have to agree with Sara B, who said it had to be for every room, why can’t it be an option for students?
What do you mean? Can you go a bit further?
Anya,
There could have been mildly valid issues to argue for the seclusion of opposite-sex housing. I’m having trouble thinking of any now… but you somehow managed to avoid discussing any important attribute to housing by filling your page with the most superficial and ignorant arguments I have ever heard.
I think you should take time to read some of the feminist, trans and queer theory that lends an outside hand to this situation. As a commenter already mentioned, randomly assigned gender neutral housing is not being proposed… giving people the option for gender neutral housing is the real issue. Students should have the option to live outside of our gendered binary, and be comfortable with where they live. It’s about accepting a variety of individuals, not making sure that a freshman girl gets to decorate her room with roses and ponies without hiding her tampons… because college males aren’t aware of menstrual cycles yet.
Not to mention, but I’ll mention it anyways, how come everyone skipped over the fact that we aren’t just dealing with a boy/girl situation. What about transgender? Further, if blacks can choose to live with other blacks, Koreans with Koreans and Jews with Jews in the dorm setting, why is this issue any different? Is gender that taboo?
Get over it people. The times are changing.
I agree, some of her arguments were pretty superficial. Maybe they werent really meant to be arguments? Perhaps they were more or less a literary technique to throw the reader into a realistic situation, instead of merely focusing on the big picture.
It looks like her “big picture” isn’t that students will be randomly assigned to gender neutral housing- it seems like she knows that. Instead I think that her argument about students taking advantage of having the option should’ve been stressed more.
But if the whole argument stands on the assumption that such an option may be taken advantage of, then why start any new initiative anywhere in the world? Every system has gaps, but we rely on our social contracts to keep each other in check. Will some students use gender neutral dorms for their benefit? Certainly. More than 2 a year? Probably not. The type of person that people think might try and circumvent the system would probably not want to live in gender neutral dorms (GND). It is baffling to me that some people are willing to deny a minority their human rights simply because they are ‘concerned’ that some boy may live with some girl and they’ll find themselves miserable because there are tampons in the corner.
More on the topic, the fear is only for failed heterosexual relationships in GNDs. What about those that succeed? Think about the positive externalities that would spring from such open-mindedness. Please, take 20 seconds and ponder.
Anya, nobody has proposed randomly assigning men and women to live together. “Gender neutral housing,” at this point, simply means granting requests without prejudice, not integrating total neutrality into the lottery process.
I agree that we should be encouraging an inclusive environment. But Horky said, “I understood that by being around, listening to, challenging, and having fun with people that experience the world differently than I do, I was becoming a better citizen of the world.” If “transgender people experience housing” differently, than don’t they “experience the world differently”? In this sense, we shouldn’t be taking any people away from the housing community, but rather try to include them as this will create a more inclusive environment. Will this policy make the residence halls more exclusive?
And if this group wants to live separately, what’s to stop other groups from wanting to live separately?
I agree. I think the greatest danger of gender-neutral housing is the possibility of creating two isolated communities: one that is actively aware and supportive of the LGBT community and one that is, at the least, apathetic and unaware.
Anya never mentioned this, which is just one of the reasons why her essay was so bad.