Vote for Gender-Neutral Housing

Housing is kind of a big deal at Harvard. From blocking angst to Housing Day to incredibly intense House lotteries, most Harvard upperclassmen have at least one story about housing-related drama. But for some students, the process is complicated by another factor: gender. As it stands, Harvard College’s policy on gender-neutral housing unnecessarily complicates the housing and rooming process in some Houses by enforcing antiquated rules. An Undergraduate Council referendum in the upcoming election (question 1) comes to the same conclusion I do: The administration should universalize the option for gender-neutral housing as soon as possible.

There are certainly instances of multi-gendered housing situations on campus. The historical, baseline policy of the College is to “ordinarily” require single-gender housing, except “in certain circumstances” for students who request multi-gender housing. Even in those circumstances, the policy requires locks on doors for students living in multi-gendered suites. But in 2011 the College introduced a pilot program lifting that requirement for students in gender-neutral housing. Seven Houses now take part. Still other Houses have an unofficial gender-neutral housing policy, allowing students to request exceptions from their House administrators. This complicated jigsaw, though, still leaves some students out and forces others to jump through hoops to achieve their desired housing situation; a school-wide policy, while changing relatively little for many, would have a dramatic and positive effect overall.

For students espcially intent on gender-neutral housing, there does exist a means to secure it: Before Housing Day, a student can approach the Office of Student Life and prove that it is necessary. But there are a limited number of suites that fit the requirements, and the College’s written policy emphasizes those who have “gender-based need”—basically, those who identify as transgender or gender non-conforming.

This is absurd. First, this singles out transgender students and forces them to go through a more difficult process than others to secure safe and comfortable housing. Moreover, it confines their House options, ruining part of the fun of Housing Day for them and effectively ensuring that some Houses are entirely devoid of anyone who does not identify with their assigned-at-birth sex. Even if this affects a very few students, it is still more than should have to find themselves in this situation. But finally, this assumes that people who want to live in a gender-neutral environment must be trans or gender non-conforming, an absolutely false supposition. While the people most concerned about their gendered living arrangements might well be those forced to confront their own gender on a daily basis, there are plenty of cisgender, straight undergrads that have friends of other genders they would like to room with.

The best judges of student comfort in housing situations are students themselves. Undergraduates prefer to live with their friends, or at the very least, people they trust. The College should trust its undergraduates to make good decisions about living arrangements; for many students, that level of trust already exists. Harvard does not ensure that gay men cannot room with other gay men, or that gay women cannot room with gay women, because that would be difficult to enforce and obviously unnecessary: There is implicit trust both that people live with those they trust, and that students have enough control over themselves to not act on every potential attraction.

That being said, one possible rationale for the locks rule, as well as a main concern often raised about gender-neutral housing, is that of sexual assault. Though rape and assault prevention is absolutely necessary, single-gender housing is an inconsistent, heteronormative approach to this problem that alienates a significant number of students.

Another common objection raised to gender-neutral housing tends to be that of incoming first-years. Harvard randomizes housing among first-years, making it difficult to assess everyone’s comfort level with any gender. This is probably a valid concern, and deserves more thought and planning. But the fact that some of the school may be unsuited to a particular policy does not mean that policy should not be implemented for the rest of it. In the meantime, housing options for openly gender non-conforming or transgender first-years should be made more explicit in their availability; a person’s preference for the gender of their roommate should in no way impact their level of safety or comfort in their first-year rooms.

Harvard has moved in a positive direction in the past few years with regard to gender-neutral housing. The pilot program and the understanding of House masters has meant that many students have been able to achieve their desired housing situation. This progress, though, is not enough: To achieve an ideal and equitable situation for all students, the College should endorse and enforce a school-wide gender-neutral housing policy as soon as possible. Question 1 would push the administration toward this policy: If you agree that everyone has the right to live with the people with whom they feel most comfortable, vote yes.

Julia R. Geiger ’16 is a Crimson editorial comper in Eliot House.