OU’s compulsory housing policy is problematic for students who do not fit OU’s traditional ideals of gender and sexuality. All entering freshmen are required to live in campus housing until they attain a certain number of hours. OU housing is expensive, and often involves living with a roommate of the same sex.
This requirement has the potential to cause significant discomfort to a multitude of individuals: those who express a different gender than their assigned biological sex, individuals who are trans, pan, bi or homosexual and others who would be more comfortable living with someone who is assigned to them on some basis more meaningful than their biological sex.
OU’s housing policy has the potential to cause much more than discomfort. Oklahoma’s frequently homophobic political climate combined with our policy of mandatory freshman residence creates an atmosphere of discomfort — and potential danger — for those students who do not fit into traditional gender roles.
In this new era of administrative understanding of student issues, some of the best-regarded universities in the country have changed their own policies to better accommodate all of their students.
Universities that have gender-blind or neutral housing policies include: Columbia, Emory, Rutgers, Harvard, Northeastern, Dartmouth and Cornell. Even the University of Michigan, a public state university like OU, has recently implemented a gender-neutral housing policy for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students.
Our university President David Boren frequently speaks out about his desire to make OU a real competitor with these premium schools, on all levels. OU falls desperately short in terms of making the university a safe and comfortable place for our diverse body of students.
The presence of a formal policy would help to remove the fear and pressure of having to come out to the director of Housing and Food Services in order to apply for a housing transfer, as OU’s current policy requires.
In response to these circumstances, Students for a Democratic Society submitted a proposal for a gender-neutral housing policy to Dave Annis, Housing and Food Services director, in the fall of 2010. This proposal was not taken as a serious demand — it was ignored by the Housing and Food administration with the all too common justification “this is Oklahoma”.
Decades ago, this excuse was also the justification for Norman’s racially discriminatory housing practices, and for our university and state public schools’ very late adoption of racial integration.
Because the formal routes to change this policy proved ineffective, a coalition of student groups that support a gender-neutral housing campaign, including the SDS, OU GLBT and the Women’s and Gender Studies Student Association planned and executed an occupation of the Oklahoma Memorial Union in support of a gender-neutral housing policy for OU.
Monday night, more than 30 students gathered near Crossroads to sleep-in in support of a gender-neutral housing policy. These students were promptly addressed by both campus and union security and police forces, and told they were not at liberty to protest and picket in the union with their signs and props. However, Title 6, Article 3, of our student code states “orderly picketing and other forms of peaceful expression are permitted in public places on institution premises so long as there is neither interference with ingress or egress at institution facilities, interruption of classes, damage to property, or disruption of the operation of the institution.”
The students who slept in the union Monday night in support of the gender-neutral housing policy change violated none of these stipulations and were wrongfully prohibited from fully expressing their opinion. They should be offered a formal, public apology from the university police.
Additionally, our administrators must begin to recognize widespread student support for this policy change, and take steps to implement a safe housing policy for all students. The first step in this procedure is a recommendation from President Boren to the Board of Regents in support of a gender-neutral OU housing policy.
— Sarah Garrett, anthropology senior
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
TheJeff 1 year, 1 month ago
"This proposal was not taken as a serious demand" Just a suggestion: Have someone more serious than SDS help.
How does it work? Is it a few specified wings that are truly "gender blind" and random room-mates for those willing? Or is it all dorms and everyone just puts a preference for the gender of their room-mate? It probably couldn't work in Cate Center with communal bathrooms. It might be a logistical pain in the towers with 4 people to a bathroom, but they could tell the demand and group those willing together and be alright.
Perhaps instead of attacking and making an adversarial environment, just barrage the paper and university with practical ideas about how it can work. Address possible problems and solutions.
A bunch of people sleeping in the union doesn't make much of an impact. Showing real evidence of bullying and giving a practical solution again and again would be better.
TheJR 1 year, 1 month ago
This is something that I'd say is relevant, but I've seen no real investigative reporting. Why is it that SDS is the only organization fighting for this policy? Where are the students they are supposedly advocating for? Have any students ever said they were uncomfortable with the process in place? Wouldn't gender-blind housing cause issues for the other 99.9999% of the student population who do identify with a certain gender?
SDS only looks at one side of the coin.
hbrown2012 1 year, 1 month ago
Very well said.
bruenig 1 year, 1 month ago
Some points for those unfamiliar with this and the history of this campaign.
Real evidence of bullying, addressing problems and solutions, and providing providing practical ideas has already been done in this 20 page proposal SDS put together and presented directly to the heads of Student Life and Housing & Food. Read it here: http://ompldr.org/vOGNtaQ/genderneutral.pdf
The way this is supposed to work is purely as an opt-in. Nobody will be made to live in gender-neutral housing environments. There would be a floor (or floors depending on how many people want it) set aside for those opting in.
So, we have actually done everything the two critical comments have asked. But people still don't seem to believe that the administration just wont react when you go through the proper channels. We also have a unanimous resolution by the lol student congress in favor of it too. Once again, proper channels don't work. If anyone else needs more proof of it, show me how you can be more proper than a proposal with research included from over 30 schools that have the option already, meetings with top administrators over it, and a UOSA resolution.
We do this kind of stuff because the administration doesn't care about student concerns. They only care about media attention. The sexual assault policy stuff proves that better than any of my arguments could.
FedUp 1 year, 1 month ago
If I remember correctly, the university has mixed gender hallways about 6 years ago, however 5 years ago this practice stoped, aparently these young people where making even younger people, and so the practice was stoped.
Now you want the option for mixed gender rooms, and you dont see a problem with that? realy? are you sure?
ruckus 1 year, 1 month ago
@TheJeff - Real evidence of bullying? How about Tyler Clementi, the Rutgers freshman who killed himself after a homophobic roommate taped him having sex with a man and then broadcast the video to campus? Since his suicide Rutgers and several other public and private institutions have implemented versions of genderneutral housing policies as a direct response.
@TheJR - as stated in the article, SDS is not the only one fighting for this. The proposal is supported by GLBTF and Women's and Gender Studies Student Associations as well students who are not formally affiliated with either group.
Furthermore, this coalition's proposal is about a genderneutral housing OPTION, not mandatory genderneutral housing for everyone.
For people who want to inform themselves about this campaign, the Daily archives are pretty good and the actual proposal written and submitted by SDS/GLBTF can be found here: http://oklahomasds.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/genderneutral.pdf
TheJeff 1 year, 1 month ago
Ruckus, I didn't claim there was no bullying. I said talking about the bullying and bringing up evidence, not only of the extreme, but that which might be flying under the radar specifically at OU, might be useful.
I wasn't really arguing anything so much as asking for clarification on what was desired. Some articles have presented it as an option for specific wings, while other less specific articles make it seem like it would replace traditional system entirely. These issues are cleared up in Breunig's report.
Bruenig et al., I completely believe that "official" channels are slow-to-pointless. But what I meant was instead of picking a fight with the administration or creating a hostile environment that would only entrench people in an opinion that might not have been strong, was just present those simple facts to the students and raise demand broadly.
Instinctive 1 year, 1 month ago
It's difficult to take an SDS proposal seriously because of their (not entirely off-base) reputation as spending their time often looking for ways to get offended just so they have something to feel important about...
Source credibility aside, there are problems with gender neutral housing. Number one overall: If you're a guy, and you can live with a girl, then a straight guy ought to be able to live with a girl as well.
The proposal looks to me as though it swings the pendulum to the other side and reverse discriminates against non-LGBTQ persons.
To do gender neutral housing correctly, what you really need to do is allow for students with Significant Others, regardless of sexual orientation, to live together. If a girl wants to live with her boyfriend, then it has to be allowed if you are going to allow gender neutral housing for LGBTQ persons - otherwise you have not solved a problem, but rather passed on discrimination to another group.