Messaging is important. Talk to your friends about gender-neutral rooming and identify which arguments resonate, and why. In our experience, we’ve found that there are four overarching ways that you can a) frame the status quo as unacceptable, and b) present gender-neutral policy as a “best practice” that campus administrators would be keen to adopt.

—————————

The proper role of the college is not to determine with whom students may or may not live, but rather to empower its students to make their own decisions responsibly.

— Harvard College Democrats, statement in support of the “Rooming Choice Act”
The Daily Free Press, March 2006

1. Responsibility and Self-Determination

While it is little surprise that gender-neutral policies have been successfully passed at schools such as Wesleyan, Hampshire, or UC Riverside, tackling the traditionalist ethos at places like Harvard and Dartmouth may necessitate the development of a tailored strategy.Recognizing the atmosphere of privilege, power, and liberty that is so seemingly ubiquitous on Ivy League campuses, communicating gender-neutral rooming as an affirmation of “responsibility and self-determination” seems to resonate favorably within laissez-faire environments. Upon the successful passage of gender-neutral policy at Dartmouth earlier this year, many campaigns across the nation are now beginning to employ “freedom of choice” rhetoric and win the support from activists and others alike.

—————————

The fact of the matter is that people would feel uncomfortable with the idea of coed roommates because they ignore two central points: Putting a man and a woman together doesn’t mean that they’ll have a sexual relationship, and putting men with men and women with women doesn’t mean that they won’t.

— Corey Prachniak, second-year student at Georgetown University
The Hoya: September, 2006

2. Heteronormative Assumptions

Originally instituted to create residential environments free from sexual tension, it is now apparent that same-sex housing policies were, and continue to be, based on traditionalist, heteronormative assumptions about sexuality. The remedy sought by such traditional policy is obviously unrealistic, as the reality of the situation is that couples of the same sex can officially live in the same room. Thus, a major claim in favor of conventional rooming policy is premised upon outdated rationale and should be challenged. Furthermore, while traditional gender-segregated policy is intended to eliminate sexual tension, in practicality it forces non-heterosexual students into rooming arrangements that may be riddled with sexual discordance.

—————————

I had to contact someone in the Housing office and basically out myself as a trans person.

— Anonymous student at Stanford University
The Stanford Daily, November 2007

3. Safety and Comfort

Many uncomfortable with the notion of gender-neutral rooming options have suggested that it is more sensible for campuses to have accommodating options for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students. Beyond the more obvious problems with such an alternative, it is important to note what many forget. The safety and comfort of minorities is often infringed upon when requiring the disclosure of personal status. No one ought to feel pressured into such a scenario, and many, undoubtedly, would opt to remain in silence. Notably, the issue of LGBT safety has been utilized to argue that such policy is urgently necessary. By highlighting the violence and discrimination against a minority population that is often targeted, several student campaigns have inspired swift change through a rhetoric of personal security.

—————————

It makes sense in this modern day and age. Males and females are friends. It’s a non-issue.

— Hannah Sullivan, second-year student at Macalester College
Star Tribune, October 2005

4. A New Era of Gender Relations

According to a survey conducted in 2002 by American Demographics, 18-to-24-year-olds are nearly “four times as likely as those age 55 and over to have a best friend of the opposite sex.” It is no surprise, then, that older Americans have a tendency to embrace antiquated ideologies about sex, gender, and sexuality. Furthermore, given that college and university trustees and administrators are typically much older than the student populous, outdated policies often remain in place because those in power are unaccustomed to the profound transformation in gender relations that has transpired over recent years. A successful strategy to change policy may need to recognize and engage with these generational boundaries.