When I arrived at Wash. U., I quickly learned what sub-free meant. It meant that the drinking that is tolerated on other freshman floors is not allowed on those floors. Yes, the residents of sub-free floors can drink, but not on the floor, and they are not allowed on the floor while drunk. These restrictions are actually considerably more relaxed than what I had envisioned when I heard the term “substance free.” I was surprised to learn that substance free residents are allowed to drink, and even more surprised to learn that many do drink.
Even despite these surprises, my freshmen experience has led me to take serious issue with the idea of substance-free housing. It is simply unnecessary, unfair and divisive to designate entire floors as substance free.

Substance-free housing is unnecessary because the decision to be substance free is inherently a personal one. If an individual wants to remain substance free, that is entirely his or her own choice. If someone is firm in his or her decision not to partake in drinking, he or she could do so no matter where he or she lives. If he or she prefers not even to have alcohol in the room, there could be an option to choose a substance free roommate, without designating entire floors as substance free.

The substance free designation is unfair because often the decision to live on a substance-free floor is not left in the hands of a student. I have met many students whose parents forced them to live on a sub-free floor, or worse, I have met students who did not ask to live on a sub-free floor but were put on one anyway simply because Residential Life needed to fill rooms. College is a place where at long last, young people achieve full independence. Creating a living option that may be preferable to many parents but not to their children is a disservice to students and an intrusion on the independence that college promises.

Finally, the existence of substance-free housing is divisive. In almost every other way there is diversity in housing. Freshman floors are intentionally diverse, with people of all backgrounds sharing one living space. I would say that one of the great pleasures of my first semester at Wash. U. has been living with people from all over the world, many of whom have entirely different beliefs from my own. This includes friends who live on my own floor who themselves choose to be substance free. Unfortunately, due to the existence of substance-free floors, there are many more potential friends who could have ended up on my floor, but did not because of the flick of a pen. Sadly, this is an unavoidable consequence when people are divided so artificially.

The college experience is designed to prepare students for the rest of their lives. Students take classes that prepare them for their careers, join clubs that allow them to share their interests and live with people that both become friends and expand their horizons. The fact is that throughout almost every Wash. U. graduate’s life, they will have to work with and probably live with or near people who do not agree with their personal decisions about alcohol and other substances. An important chance to prepare for this aspect of life comes in college. The opportunity to live with, understand and respect the different choices of one’s classmates is invaluable. Washington University should recognize this important opportunity and change its housing policies, which currently hamper it.