Co-Ed? Co-Everything! New frontiers in roommates

National Review, May 22, 2000 by Naomi Schaefer

FOR almost four decades, college administrators-faced with successive waves of the sexual revolution-have followed a policy that might be labeled "aggressive appeasement." First, women's curfews were abolished. Next, dorms were rendered "coeducational" (and " accepted as a matter of course). Soon, university health services were routinely distributing or even pushing condoms; gay-advocacy groups were being given official sanction, even at Catholic schools; and Williams College led the way in abolishing single-sex bathrooms.

As Neville Chamberlain might with hindsight have conceded, appeasement tends only to heighten the demands of those being appeased. So, what might there be left for sexual liberators to demand? Haverford College recently announced that beginning next fall, it will allow men and women to share bedrooms in dormitories. The administration's decision comes partly in response to complaints of discrimination from the school's homosexual population. These students claim that the current requirement that roommates be of the same gender sometimes forces them to live in uncomfortable situations. While there are a few other colleges around the country-Hampshire, Antioch, Wes ley an-that allow for coed rooming arrangements, Haverford may be the first "mainstream" liberal-arts institution to adopt this policy.

Another university wrestling with this issue is Tufts. Senior Carl Sciortino Jr., former co-chair of the school's Transgendered, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Collective, launched a campaign for co-ed rooms last fall, explaining that a number of his friends have had "negative housing experiences." "There are roommate issues where homophobia becomes a major problem," he told the Boston Globe, citing instances of anti-gay graffiti and heterosexual students' moving out when they find themselves with a gay roommate. But Sciortino also was worried about gay students' being forced into same-gender rooms because "students in the past have found themselves having a major crush on their straight roommate, and that's a really uncomfortable situation."

Sciortino worked with the dean of students to develop a pilot program under which 20 students who had signed consent forms would be assigned to live in 10 mixed-gender rooms. The consent forms would state the students' willingness to live in such rooms and would pledge that they were not romantically "involved" with the roommates. Since the form would not ask the students to specify their sexual orientation, the program could not be restricted to homosexual students. "I'm not really interested in the fact that this would help straight couples, but that's fine if it does," said Sciortino.

It wasn't fine with Tufts University president John DiBiaggio. In March, he flatly rejected the plan: "We're directed by university policy, and university policy is that housing will be single-sex, and that's what we're sticking with." DiBiaggio gives several reasons for denying Sciortino's requests. "I think traditionally we have had single-sex rooms because of liability issues," he says, citing concerns about "the kinds of circumstances and conflicts that might arise from [coed rooms]."

Beyond the legal issues involved, which might perhaps be circumvented by consent forms, DiBiaggio also re marks that "while we realize many of our students are sexually active, we don't see it as our role to encourage it." Catching himself sounding a little backward for a university president, he adds, "I'm not saying that we are prudish. We are not acting in loco parentis. But we are dealing with life- threatening venereal diseases here."

DiBiaggio did offer some alternatives for homosexual students who are uncomfortable with their living situations, such as making it easier for students to move off campus in their first or second year. Moreover, he says, "the college does its best to accommodate students' requests to change rooms." So if a homosexual student did feel uncomfortable with his roommate, alternative arrangements could be made. "Particularly freshman year, we are aware that we are randomly placing people together, and we know they are not always compatible."

DiBiaggio should be wary, though. This same policy of accommodating students wishing to switch roommates has occasioned much criticism of Harvard University's administration. Last fall, Harvard's undergraduate council passed a resolution asking the administration to "end the practice of allowing a student to change rooms solely because she or he [!] is uncomfortable with the sexual orientation of her or his roommate before making a sincere attempt to live with that person." Currently, incoming Harvard freshmen can ask to switch rooms over the summer if they find out that their roommate is gay and are uncomfortable with the situation. Rep resentatives of the council argue that the freshman dean's office is creating "an environment in which homophobia is seen as an acceptable belief which should be accommodated." Predictably, some students liken Harvard's policy to accommodating prejudices against rooming with persons of other races or religions. As one Crimson writer explains, "With slight tweaking, any bigot can get roommates of the ethnic background, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation of his or her choice."