Hey Everybody,
I hope the Spring is treating y'all well, and that you're not getting too stir crazy with all that snow. My Spring been pretty hectic so far, but by the grace of God I'm keeping my head above water. I thought y'all might enjoy reading some of the latest controversy I've been involved in here at Claremont. Basically, I was asked by some kids at the undergraduate school, Claremont McKenna, to debate a guy from the ACLU on the topic of "gender neutral housing." That's right, dudes and chicks living in the same dorm room. Unfortunately CMC is probably going to go for it, but not before I've throw down an argument:
Separate Housing: It’s not Prudish, It’s Prudent
By Christopher Wolfe, Claremont Graduate University
I would like to offer some reasons for why I think the gender separate housing policy at Claremont McKenna is a good idea. What I will be explaining is not some prejudice, but a rational basis from the real costs and real benefits of the two housing situations- gender neutral and gender separate. There are economic, practical, and moral reasons to keep gender separate housing, and virtually no benefits to allowing a gender neutral housing option--other than perhaps a feel-good moment for the ACLU.
Before I get into these pluses and minuses, I’d like to indulge in a little ad hominem against the ACLU and its claimed defense of “civil liberties” through this initiative. What civil liberties are they defending exactly? Fair and equal treatment of each woman and man certainly is a civil liberty we should fight for, but that is not what is at stake with gender separate housing. Whenever the word “separate” is used, people assume some kind of unfair discrimination. The word “separate” recalls the famous 1896 segregation case, Plessy v. Ferguson, in which the Supreme Court upheld the racist “separate but equal” doctrine, preventing blacks from riding in the same train cars as whites. However, separate dorm rooms for women and men say nothing about either gender’s superiority. Differences between citizens are recognized all the time by the government; without them, we could not have a progressive income tax, for example. Recognizing differences is only a violation of civil liberties when citizens are mistreated on the basis of indelible characteristics such as race, as blacks were back in the 50s. Blacks required the status of a “protected class” to prevent the unfair discrimination of segregation. There is no discrimination based on indelible characteristics here, and these students do not merit the status of protected class. Students who don’t believe in “biological sex or gender identity” can always attend some other private college. For CMC to delve into the minds of its students and protect every imaginable opinion would be impossible and contradictory. That is why the premise of the ACLU’s “civil liberty” argument is absurd.
The current housing situation at Claremont McKenna provides comparable dorm rooms for men and women and respects their differences. Men and women will have different demands in terms of the cleanliness, organization, and upkeep of their facilities; separate housing allows for the most economical and satisfactory fulfillment of these different demands. Just take a tour of a Men’s and Lady’s restroom and you’ll see what I mean. That is not to say that men’s facilities are always more messy, but they at least tend to be more spare and Spartan. When men’s and women’s dorm rooms are combined, their different preferences will be combined to the dissatisfaction of all. With gender neutral housing, either CMC will have to spend more money on upkeep of the dorms or many CMC students will be unhappy with their environment.
Separate dorm rooms for men and women are also good for the soul of the university. There is a certain esprit de corps that goes along with men’s and women’s dorms that is lost when housing is neutral. Claremont McKenna does not have any fraternities or sororities, but that same brotherly and sisterly attitude can be found among friends in the dorms. Men and women often laugh at different kinds of jokes, pull different dumb pranks, and drink alcohol in different amounts when they are “with the girls” or “with the guys.” And the fact of the matter is, when men and women are around the opposite sex, they act differently. There will be fewer occasions to “talk trash” with your “bro’s” in neutral housing, and I for one think that is a shame. CMC should preserve its strong manly and womanly character that makes it unique among the Claremont Colleges.
Last and most importantly, there are moral problems that result from mixed-gender dorm rooms. Two key phrases that have disappeared from the college moral vocabulary: “occasion of sin” and “scandal.” Occasions of sin are compromising circumstances that could have been avoided and end up getting us into trouble. An obvious example would be getting drunk and sleeping in the same room as someone you are sexually attracted to; mistakes often happen as a result. But this is exactly the kind of compromised circumstances gender neutral housing will encourage, whether it is men taking advantage of women or women taking advantage of men. “Scandal” is a more nuanced problem, the leading of others to do bad action by our apparent bad action. Even if nothing is going down in the gender neutral dorm rooms, it sets a permissive tone on campus when unmarried men and women sleep in the same room every night. In their proposal the ACLU offers a ridiculous stipulation, that CMC “strongly discourages students from rooming together with a romantic partner.” If CMC really cared about such things, they would not go in for gender-mixed dorm rooms! These concerns are not just the prudishness of the 1950s, they have experience on their side. Mr. Lifson says that moral concerns are not “philosophical or practical objections.” That is nonsense. Morality is of the utmost long-term importance for living a happy life, and is always a concern of philosophy and practical reasoning.
The ACLU of course does not understand any of this, but presents sentimental reasoning to promote its favored “opinion” about gender. Their argument in this case is unsound, and it would be a mistake for the Board of Trustees of CMC to instate gender-neutral housing. After the feel-good moment is over, the students are the ones who would deal with the result- a changed college culture.
