The Daily Princetonian recently reported that the gender-neutral housing pilot program, now in its second month, has produced no problems thus far. While the Board recognizes that it is premature to fully assess the program, the majority doubts that the problems that may surface will be any more serious or troublesome than those that exist in same-sex rooms. In any event, these problems should not be treated as substantively different from other roommate problems. The majority therefore recommends that the gender-neutral housing option be extended to all upperclassmen, including those in four-year residential colleges.
One of the stated purposes of the gender-neutral housing pilot program was to assess student interest in such an option. But by choosing Spelman Halls, among the most competitive and restrictive of dormitories, the University limited students’ opportunities to take advantage of the pilot program. Furthermore, the room arrangement in Spelman, in which each student lives in a single bedroom, is rare elsewhere on campus. Gender-neutral housing is only “gender-neutral” if sex and gender are not considered salient characteristics to limit roommate choices, and this ethos should extend to all types of dormitories.
The dissent argues that expanding gender-neutral housing could increase the possibility and frequency of cohabiting couples, and that relationship troubles might increase the frequency and cost of relocating students midway through the academic year. Though failing to implement gender-neutral housing could be seen as a strategy to minimize risk, it nonetheless reflects a heteronormative prioritization of heterosexual relationships. Given its commitment to nondiscrimination, the University cannot justify treating certain relationships differently than others, even if heterosexual relationships are more common. Second, Princeton students are adults, and the majority believes that they should be treated as such. At many other universities, upperclassmen typically live in apartments, where there are no such restrictions. Upperclassmen, who already have experience in choosing roommates, should be entrusted with this choice, regardless of sex or gender.
The dissent argues that a number of minor reforms, such as offering transgender students priority access to singles or creating gender-neutral housing entryways, would solve the same problems as a campus-wide expansion of gender-neutral housing. But forcing these students to limit their housing options to singles is to treat their identity as a disability. Moreover, restricting gender-neutral housing to only a subset of entryways might ghettoize a group of students who already face historically entrenched bias. In addition, the number of students who would feel uncomfortable living near mixed-gender rooms is likely very small. The potential benefit of accommodating their concerns by restricting gender-neutral housing is outweighed by the benefit of granting students in all upperclass dorms more autonomy in their housing decisions.
In accordance with these institutional priorities, expanding gender-neutral housing will provide a more welcoming campus for all students. In particular, transgender and genderqueer students will greatly benefit from the increased flexibility and dignity this policy would offer. But it is not only transgender or even LGBT students who would benefit from such a policy. In recent years the administration has strived to diversify options in housing and dining to give students autonomy in shaping their Princeton experience. By offering gender-neutral housing to all upperclassmen, the University could adhere to its nondiscriminatory and inclusive mission while giving students the freedom to choose their roommates.
Dissent
While the majority admits that it would be preemptive to definitively assess the gender-neutral housing pilot so soon after it has been instituted, it nonetheless endorses expansion on the basis of this trial. Given that problems are unlikely to arise such a short time after any pilot begins, further data should be collected before a prudential recommendation can be made.
Providing students with more choice in matters of housing is valuable, but only insofar as there are no decisive costs or reasons that count against providing these choices. Currently, the University doesn’t defer to a principle of absolute autonomy in housing matters. For example, underclassmen must live in residential colleges. We argue that in the case of gender-neutral housing, these costs are real: For instance, more students in relationships may feel pressured to room with their significant others. Increases in the number of cohabiting couples would likely be problematic when breakups occurred.
While it is true that gender-neutral housing provides for some students whose housing needs are not being met, such as transgender students, there are a number of viable alternatives to address these concerns. These students could be given priority access to singles, or a limited subset of upperclass dorms could be set aside as gender-neutral. While the majority may argue that such measures are heteronormative, we find that many other facilities, including bathrooms, are single-sex. By their logic, the vast majority of bathrooms ought to become gender-neutral.
Increasing the amount of gender-neutral housing available purely on principle, with no concern for the actual needs of students, misunderstands the purpose of housing. Given that all students have fair access to housing through processes like room draw, the University should be concerned with the most prudent ways to meet student needs — not with fulfilling all students’ desires or abiding by abstract principles. Housing options should exist to meet the needs of students, and the expansion of gender-neutral housing is an overbroad response to a narrow problem.
Dissenters: Oliver Palmer ’11, Shivani Radhakrishnan ’11, Matt Butler ’12
Read More
Princeton’s administration of justice is Trumpian
Frances BroganThe disparity between the University’s approach to Giberson and its approach to pro-Palestinian protestors reflects a concerning trend of appeasing an increasingly emboldened right rather than resisting the threat it poses to academic freedom and the wellbeing of Princeton students.
Secular Opening Exercises? Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water
Frank StrasburgerThe secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
The secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
Return Pete Hegseth’s educational ideologies “to sender”
Lily Halbert-AlexanderHegseth believes students are being raised to “see America as an evil place” because his confining approach to education leaves no room for admiration and criticism, hope and horror, to coexist. He treats American history, patriotic ideals and the “pillars of Western civilization” as if they were made of glass, as if “cross-cultural encounters” and critical race theory, the “cornucopia of diversity” he criticizes, could shatter them.
Hegseth believes students are being raised to “see America as an evil place” because his confining approach to education leaves no room for admiration and criticism, hope and horror, to coexist. He treats American history, patriotic ideals and the “pillars of Western civilization” as if they were made of glass, as if “cross-cultural encounters” and critical race theory, the “cornucopia of diversity” he criticizes, could shatter them.
