| By Emily Rutherford - Oct 14th, 2009 at 9:47 am EDT |
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Updates |
I've never legit gotten to break a story before, but I just found out that some news I've known for 24 hours is now public: Princeton will have a gender-neutral housing option starting in this spring's housing lottery for the 2010-11 school year.
The proposal, authored by student members of the Undergraduate Life Committee, with the help of yours truly, was approved by the ULC two weeks ago and then got a necessary second endorsement from the Council of Masters (of the six residential colleges) yesterday. It's a pilot program which designates Spelman Hall, an apartment-style housing option for upperclass students (in which, significantly, every student gets their own bedroom), as gender-neutral. Instead of having to draw in groups of four students of the same gender, there will be no gender requirement on groups entering the Spelman draw. The ULC, the USG, the Housing office, and anyone else with a stake in the issue will be watching pretty closely to see how this plays out next year. Depending on interest, they may choose to expand gender-neutral housing to other upperclass dorms, or to keep it restricted to Spelman.
This is a big step forward for Princeton, which, until the ULC undertook this proposal, was the only university among the Ivy League and a set of other R1 universities that had never actively considered a gender-neutral housing proposal. While this pilot program may go on to affect relatively few people next year—particularly since it's only an option for students eligible for the Spelman draw anyway—it's a major change in university policy that brings Princeton quite dramatically and unequivocally into the 21st century. I can't help gloating that it puts us ahead of Yale (which withdrew its pilot program last year to considerable undergraduate ire), and the fact that it happened with relatively little fanfare speaks very, very well for this university and its administration.
I'm extraordinarily proud that I can say I had a part in making this happen, however small. We all have to do what we can to make our communities places we can be proud of, and create circumstances that will be better for the next generation. Now we have to turn our attention to making sure the pilot program goes well next year, but I can't resist taking at least a few days to bask in the warmth of having made real, discernible change to the policy of this place.
Even Princeton, folks. Even Princeton.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
This announcement means that the university administration--in the form of the Undergraduate Life Council, the Council of Masters, and the Housing Office--has endorsed the ULC proposal. This is much more than a "demand"--it *will* happen for the 2010 draw.
'13,
Let me quote from the argument I made in a memo to the Council of Masters last week:
"GNH is not intended as a way for significant others to live together, nor is it likely to become such. As young adults, upperclass students are not only capable of living with opposite-gender roommates, they are capable of separating their sexual from their nonsexual relationships. It is worth looking at the case of same-sex couples, who could live together under the current housing policy--and yet that is something entirely unheard of among undergraduates. It seems no more likely that mixed-gender draw groups (who, under our proposed policy, would have separate, gender-segregated sleeping spaces) would live together for sexual or romantic purposes than same-gender groups currently do."
@'13 re: SOSN: What a cheap, unfunny observation, and one that falls to pieces at the slightest scrutiny. Nobody is going to be forced to live with someone of the opposite gender, much less be forced to have sex with anyone else. Perhaps you haven't had time to catch on yet, but this is beneath you. Especially as a Princeton student. Were I you I would worry less about making it through four years at Princeton when students could choose to room with who they feel comfortable, and focus more on how exactly you plan to hack it at a place where insightful argument is expected rather than an ill-advised wisecrack.
@both: Your sudden, knee-jerk, and vitriolic reactions to something that does not directly affect you worry me far more than the possible negative implications of any University policy--and that's assuming there are even significant negative implications in the first place.
@Emily: Bravo. Words fail.
-IJ '11
1. This option reflects, in part, the fact that families are much smaller today than in the recent past. If you're grown up with opposite-sex siblings, the appeal of rooming with one would be decidedly less.
2. Even in a large family, siblings generally share actual sleeping rooms on a same-sex basis. This hyper-closeness is certainly something new.
3. But, not to worry. Having seen (and lived in) my share of boys' dorms, I can assure you that there are not many women who would tolerate the personal habits of many young men. So not many students are likely to choose this plan.
4. This is not about open-mindedness. It's about practical realities, and maybe to a lesser extent the desire of student groups to be cutting-edge and administrators to do whatever the students want to avoid conflict.
Many an evening spent drinking beer while forestalling study in various Spelman suites over the years would certainly have been brightened by a friendly female face (and someone to insist on a cleaner bathroom)
Should be "his or her own bedroom."
Props to Princeton. University of Wisconsin-Madison is right behind you and will be in contact with you soon. =)
Best,
Jonathan
Not to diminish your accomplishments--it's a good thing Princeton is finally catching up.
Best,
Jonathan
Best,
Jonathan