Opinion
COUNTERPOINT: Colleges should not implement gender-neutral housing
By Jessica Stone November 22, 2010 at 7:43 pm 
Print This Post
Students at the University of Arizona are petitioning for more freedom when it comes to choosing whom they live with.
About 30 Wildcats from the LGBTQ community attended a forum on Oct. 20, asking university administration to consider implementing a new pilot program that would establish a gender-neutral housing option. If the proposed program goes into effect, UA students of the opposite sex could room together next fall.
Expected to be offered in a wing or floor in a residence hall, the mixed-gender housing would primarily be designated for students in the LGBTQ community. This unique request comes as a response from students who have often felt victimized, misunderstood and even unsafe because of others’ reactions to their sexual orientation.
A change in living situation won’t end the prejudice these students face once outside their dorm rooms, however, and many feel this living arrangement will only lead to new avenues of discrimination.
Director of Residential Life for the university Jim Van Arsdel is one of these people.
For Van Ardsel, the dilemma not only lies in a question of whether the university should be obliged to accommodate its LGBTQ students, but where the university should draw the line in making such arrangements.
“Part of the difficulty is that if we become too accommodating, we get to the point where we are expected to be the agents of hatred,” said Van Ardsel, who spoke to the Arizona Daily Wildcat. Van Ardsel carefully pointed out that issues like “race, religion, sexual identity, etc. can also be fought for on the roommate preference issue.”
While the program aims to accommodate LGBTQ students presently, it opens the door for other students to ask to be provided with the same consideration. If there’s one question that must be asked in examining these types of programs, it’s “What’s next?”
The motives behind LGBTQ students requesting special living accommodations would be no different than Hispanic students or Jewish students requesting to live together. Though we may never see a day where dorms separate students by race, religion or political party, pilot programs like that being considered at UA make these types of living situations a definite possibility.
Hannah Lozon, coordinator of social justice education for Residential Life at UA, would suggest otherwise.
Speaking of the intent behind implementing the pilot program, Lozan told the Daily Arizona Wildcat that, “This isn’t about segregation. It is only about making people feel more inclusive and safe.”
But the reality is that only one group of people benefit from this arrangement, and it is for that group of people that the program is “inclusive.”
It is understandable that the LGBTQ students would feel more comfortable living in an environment where they are surrounded by peers, but by requesting to live only with those of a specific sexual orientation, they are also asking to live separately from those who who do not fall into that category.
Is it fair that LGBTQ students are exposed to prejudice on a daily basis? No. However the same answer could be given in response to asking if such pilot programs will eliminate or even lessen the degree of discrimination on college campuses.
Residence halls are used as a way to bring students together while introducing them to those with lifestyles different than their own. By enacting programs that emphasize students’ differences instead of their similarities, dorms will become a place to shelter students from diversity rather than expose them to it.
Reach Jessica at jrstone3@asu.edu
Tags: counterpoint Opinion
The author should find out more about this topic and other issues facing the LGBTQ community before choosing to write about it. One may wonder if the author is even aware of the experiences of her transgender classmates at all.
The author says “only one group of people benefit from this arrangement.” This just isn’t true. Queer identities intersect with other identities. The claim that members of the LGBTQ community are “only one group” fails to account for the very different life experiences that people of all genders, races, religions, socio-economic statuses, etc. each deal with as members of the LGBTQ community.
LGBTQ folks aren’t all the same. We are a beautiful, eclectic grab bag, full of every kind of person. Our community celebrates difference and diversity, and gender-neutral housing is one way to ensure that this celebration can occur safely for all students in our university system.
I would suggest that Jessica Stone learn the difference between sexual orientation and gender before writing an article regarding either. The LGBTQ Coalition or ASU LGBTQA Services are both excellent resources for such information. The LGBTQ Coalition meets every thursday at 6:00 pm and you can get room information from MU340.
-Jon Alfred Pabillaran
Undergraduate
I agree wholeheartedly with the two statements above. It is offensive to conflate gender identity with sexual attraction, as well as showing a lack of knowledge about the many populations addressed.
Also, I do not understand how a stance that promotes gender equality and freedom of identity and expression “only” benefits LGBTQ students. Although I am now a married graduate student, I would have loved to participate in gender-neutral housing at ASU during my undergraduate degree. It would have been a great opportunity to meet and interact with other students who, like myself, believe in advocacy and open-mindedness. Instead, I found these groups through clubs and classes.
In addition, if this pilot program were to be instituted at ASU, it is likely that potential students from around the country would begin to see ASU as more inclusive not only to LGBTQ students, but to students who don’t fit stereotypes of other kinds (such as those pertaining to religion, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, etc.). Perhaps this would put ASU on the radar for high school graduates looking for a progressive, egalitarian environment in which to study.
Thanks for your time,
Emmalyn King
ASU Alumnus and Graduate Student
I would like to point out a flaw in the author’s argument:
Gender segregation is a form of discrimination. Allowing gender-neutral housing will in fact eliminate this form of discrimination for a small population and will not serve as a foot in the door for discrimination on the basis of religion or race, as the author suggests.
I’m so glad to see the comments posted above pointing out the author’s many flaws in her argument.
Also, I would like to point out that the wing will not be LGBTQ-only. It is also inclusive of allies. We’re not fighting to just live in a community of gay people; we’re trying to create a safe place for people who identify along the spectra of sexual orientation and gender identity, whether they’re gay, straight, men, women, and anywhere between any of those identities.
And for the author’s argument that it’s not different than Jewish students creating a Jewish wing… well, I don’t see a problem with that, either. If students want a Jewish wing, then they should make one. If that’s isolation, then please justify the Native American wing, the women in science and engineering wing, the honors dorms, and every other community-based wing.