Much feminist philosophy correctly identifies the root of any type of oppression as dichotomous thinking, and thinking which takes any particular social action assumes it is the norm and refuses to recognize the characteristics of individuals who fall outside the norm as legitimate. We take these people’s situations and attempt to deal with them outside the mainstream political processes or by creating special accommodations. This action only serves to entrench the mindset that the “normal” action has a place within society, whereas the “other” action does not.

Though Wash. U. purports to fully support the GLBTQIA student group, its housing process discriminates against non-heterosexual students by forcing them into housing that is uncomfortable. Specifically to accommodate students with different sexual orientations, a Residential Life committee investigated the possibility of incorporating the option of co-ed housing. Though the committee enthusiastically supported co-ed suites, the Wash. U. administration vetoed the idea.

While Wash. U. allows students to submit special requests to the housing department to petition for an exception to the regular housing rules, taking these students out of the mainstream processes and quietly dealing with the different issues only serves to ensure that individuals with different sexual orientations remain separated from the rest of the student body. When we offer housing that only caters to heterosexual students, we send a strong message that this is the only normal and legitimate sexual identity.

Even if we allow exceptions to the rule, the fact that such a rule exists creates a strong, potentially oppressive statement about accepted sexuality and the seriousness of exceptions to that norm. A rule that entrenches such an oppressive stereotype requires considerable justification.

The most common objections to co-ed housing include the fact that people who are dating might house together and then break up and wish to switch housing, or that the University could open itself to legal liability in the instance that someone were sexually abused.

It should first be noted that if the University feels the need to protect heterosexuals from the temptation to live with people they might be sexually attracted to, it should feel a similar need to protect the rest of its student population as well. The fact that the majority of students identify themselves as heterosexuals does not mean the University should paternalistically protect them from their own potential mistakes while failing to offer the same protection to the minority.

Second, the University’s paternalistic attitude toward its students when it comes to housing makes no sense when we consider the University’s liberal attitude towards underage drinking. The University’s general philosophy towards alcohol is that Wash. U. students are old enough to handle alcohol and responsibly deal with the consequences of drinking. How can the same university that trusts its students to handle the potentially serious consequences of an illegal activity determine that it must protect them from the less serious consequences of legal actions?

When we consider the harm that results from separating people based on their sexual orientation in light of Wash. U.’s clearly progressive goal of treating all its students equally, the unequal housing policy makes no sense.

Jill is a freshman in Arts & Sciences.

Popularity: unranked [?]

 Print This Post

This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 15th, 2006 at 12:00 pm and is filed under Forum. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.