The case of expanding gender-neutral housing

We want to add to previous ‘Prince’ articles on gender-neutral housing by laying a framework explaining why expanding our GNH policy is important. Then we’d like to address a few common misconceptions about the issue. While we applaud the 2012-13 GNH expansions to additional double rooms in the upperclassmen dorms of Scully Hall, 1901-Laughlin Hall and Foulke Hall, we continue to advocate for the expansion of GNH options to all members of the undergraduate community.

The majority of the student population is of legal adult age; therefore, these students deserve opportunities to freely choose their living arrangements based on whom they are comfortable with, regardless of gender, in order to properly reflect the realities of the larger adult world. The current housing policy withholds this choice from the majority of students, with freshmen and sophomores being the most disadvantaged.

As the “Respect for Others” section of “Rules, Rights, Responsibilities” states, the University aims to allow “all members [to] participate fully and equally” in its residential community. We envision a campus where students of all class years can choose from a range of building locations and room plans and select whether they would like to live with students of all genders, the same gender or on single-sex floors.

Safe and comfortable housing is key to the well-being of all undergraduate students on campus. University housing is unfortunately one of the areas that can be difficult for LGBT students to navigate when there are strict gendered policies. While the recent GNH expansion is a commendable step in continuing to accommodate the needs of some LGBT students through housing, its limited nature makes it inaccessible to many students. For various reasons, not all individuals are comfortable living with students of the same gender. Without full expansion, the current policy may still marginalize some transgender students by having them live with someone who matches the sex listed on binary forms, which may be different from their personal gender identity. Due to the limited availability of GNH there still may be students, LGBT and/or non-LGBT, who may for various reasons feel uncomfortable living with someone of the same gender, but are unable to access GNH. First year LGBT students in particular are left only to select single housing placements in order to avoid these potentially uncomfortable situations, despite the fact that they would otherwise enjoy having the experience of living with a roommate. These students deserve to shape their college roommate experiences in ways that do not invite a tough choice between undesired isolation and having roommates whose gender makes them uncomfortable.

Some have suggested that these students could be accommodated through a type of special needs process. We are strongly against this as a solution because it would perpetuate the unnecessary pathologization of LGBT students who should not have the burden of “outing” themselves to the college administration. Moreover, extending GNH options to all entering adult students will allow students to confidentially select GNH without feeling the need to publicly explain the reasons for their housing preferences. The expansion of GNH to all students would be an opportunity for Princeton to unequivocally reaffirm its stated commitment to respect LGBT students.

Princeton has fortunately moved a long way from times when we sequestered women in Pyne Hall and imposed curfews on room visitations to students of another gender. Although we no longer have those particular outdated policies, the current housing policy still does not fully reflect the current era of gender relations: Men and women are able to have platonic friendships and can cohabitate as successfully as same-gendered non-heterosexual students already do.

Two common arguments mounted against GNH are ill-informed. The first argument raises the over-exaggerated fear that straight couples would flock to live together en masse, thus causing logistical difficulties for Housing during the inevitable relationship breakups. This argument simultaneously renders the experiences of same-gender couples already living together invisible and fails to acknowledge that many straight couples already unofficially live together on campus.

The second argument claims that GNH will lead to a heightened risk of sexual assault, but this is based on the false assumption that the only sexual violence that occurs on campus involves male perpetrators and female survivors. Our proposal for the expansion of GNH only allows for mixed-gender roommates who have mutually requested their housing arrangement.

We are glad that the GNH has been expanded for the upcoming year, and we hope for future expansions that will eventually meet the needs of all students. There is widespread support for increased GNH options, which is evident from the 1,000+ signatures that the Princeton Equality Project collected through its campaign. Continued expansion of GNH would allow us to stay true to our values outlined in the “Respect for Others” section of RRR and join our numerous peer institutions, including Brown, UPenn and Harvard, in recognizing the dignity of all students.

Sandra Mukasa ’12 is a sociology major, Emily Vanderlinden ’13 is a politics major and Allegra Wiprud is a sophomore . They can be reached at smukasa@princeton.edu, evanderl@princeton.edu & awiprud@princeton.edu.