The most recent issue of the Orient had two pieces about the prospect of an upperclassmen gender-neutral housing policy. At the moment, only students of the same gender are allowed to share a bedroom; gender-neutral housing at Bowdoin would change this. I am glad that the College is beginning to discuss this possible shift in housing policy, for our rooming situations have a significant influence on our time at Bowdoin.
Although I was glad to have Craig Hardt weigh in on the prospect of a change in housing policy ("A gender-neutral housing policy is unnecessary and problematic," November 20), parts of his op-ed were misguided. Gender-neutral housing is necessary, and it is more problematic not to have it than to have it.
Hardt wrote that there "are many options already available to the Bowdoin student body" who would prefer gender-neutral housing, but most of the options he suggested are not real options because they either ostracize students or simply do not work.
His most plausible suggestion was to appeal to Residential Life for an exception. Under the current policy, students can ask ResLife to bend the present rules because of a special case. It is true that ResLife tries to be helpful, but there is a limit to the helpfulness of an exception clause.
Those who would like to room with someone of another gender because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or biological sex might feel as though they have to "out" themselves to someone who they do not know.
Even if we set this crucial objection to the side, the lack of a clear policy is still problematic. As it stands, possible exceptions are up to Director of Residential Life Mary Pat McMahon.
While she is responsive to student concerns, what if the director who succeeds her is not as responsive? We need to ensure that students will be able to live in comfortable spaces now and in the future.
And what about students who would like to avail themselves of gender-neutral housing simply because they are friends? Would they be allowed an exception? They should be allowed to room together. Two people of differing genders sharing a room do not necessarily constitute a blooming romantic relationship. If they are allowed to room together under the exception clause, this should lead us to question: Why we should keep the exception clause at all? It would only seem to make students jump through an unnecessary hoop or "out" themselves.
Perhaps, some might say, we should keep the policy out of concern for heterosexual couples? But this again does not stand up to scrutiny. For starters, there are no hoops that gay and lesbian couples have to jump through. What of their wellbeing?
As Peter Funt mentioned in an op-ed in the Boston Globe on Monday, the fact that gay and lesbian couples are allowed to room together might be considered the campus equivalent of "Don't ask, don't tell.'' Moreover, most students are aware that it is not a good idea to room with your significant other in college. The exception clause is clearly not adequate.
The rest of Hardt's suggestions did not meet student needs either. He suggested that students looking for gender-neutral housing should room in coed suites. Well, what about those students who are not able to get a lottery number that allows them to live in a suite?
Suites also require a certain number of students that not everyone will be able to muster for the lottery. And in any case, living in suites does not solve the initial problem as many suites at Bowdoin are composed of double or triple bedrooms (Harpswell, Stowe, Howard, Mayflower, Brunswick, Stowe Inn, Pine, and Cleaveland fall into this category).
What were Hardt's other suggestions? He wrote that you could swap rooms without ResLife knowing. ResLife, of course, exists to facilitate rooming situations, so if students have to surreptitiously swap rooms, we should change the housing policy.
Even if you decide to evade ResLife, the success of your rooming situation is contingent on there being people willing to swap with you, an option that is not always available.
If none of these options work, Hardt suggested that students should move into "reasonably priced off-campus housing." This option has so many problems with it that it is virtually a non-starter.
Firstly, only some students are able to go off campus. If they do not want to add to their bills, students on financial aid would have to find off-campus housing equal to or less than the cost of College housing, which might not always be possible, and Bowdoin also has a residency requirement of two years.
But, more importantly, expecting students to live off campus if they want gender-neutral housing is effectively ostracizing them, an act that is against the inclusive community that Bowdoin prides itself on. The alternatives to gender-neutral housing, then, do not seem very promising.
What might make us balk at gender-neutral housing? Hardt asked "how many of us would really take advantage of the policy change?" It is true that only a number of students have used gender-neutral housing policies at small liberal arts colleges that have it.
But the likelihood that it would only directly apply to a small number of students is no reason to discount gender-neutral housing. Furthermore, as they would be more comfortable, students who would use gender-neutral housing options would probably be able to contribute more to the Bowdoin community.
Hardt also argued that it is "a burdensome hassle to ask the College to provide on campus gender-neutral housing options." It is true that the ResLife staff has a heavy workload, yet McMahon has said that ResLife would not consider the additional work a burden. It is primarily concerned with the wellbeing of Bowdoin students. The additional workload that would be placed on ResLife is then not of concern.
One valid concern that Hardt raised was about room reassignments. Each year ResLife has to reassign rooms either because juniors are returning from an abroad semester or because other students are having various mid-semester issues.
Craig argued that if there are gender-neutral rooms, students could be forced into uncomfortable housing situations against their will. But there are ways to get around this potential problem. In order to work with students' concerns, ResLife conducts conferences with students before they are assigned a new roommate, so no one would have to live with someone without first being able to have a conversation, and ResLife is thus in the position to assign students on the basis of their wishes.
Sometimes, however, these conversations prove unfruitful, but ResLife could make a couple of stipulations to avert forced gender-neutral rooms. In the case of mid-semester swaps, ResLife could stipulate that in the event students have to leave their rooms for whatever reason, the remaining members are not guaranteed gender-neutral housing.
ResLife would try to meet students' wishes, but logistical circumstances may determine what is possible.
In the case of returning juniors who would not have gone through the lottery, ResLife staff could again try to fulfill their requests, though logistics may intervene. Besides, as Hardt himself noted, only a small number of students would likely take advantage of the policy, so there would not be many gender-neutral assignment issues. These difficulties should not prevent us from adopting a gender-neutral policy because we can work around them. A shift in policy might not be flawless, but it would be an improvement.
Hardt wrote that rooming situations are tangled enough "without the added complication of gender." But the complication of gender is already operative, which is why we need a housing policy that addresses Bowdoin's social realities.
This piece is part of an ongoing series on gender-neutral housing at Bowdoin. Rory Brinkmann is a member of the Class of 2010.