Mark (mhaithaca) wrote,

Inclusiveness? (212.4)

One of the things we're dealing with at work is a student-driven push to implement "gender-inclusive" housing in the campus residence halls. Most dorms are now co-ed, either separated by floor if there aren't many bathrooms, or by wing, or in some cases just room by room. Now, though, the intent would be for different-gender students to room together. The policy would be that this wasn't for romantic couples, but that would be very, very hard to police. (I'm sure there are already gay and lesbian couples shacking up in campus dorm rooms because it's easier to get away with.)

All the necessary approvals are expected, and the people behind this want it implemented pretty much immediately, to allow gender-inclusive room selection for the 2013-2014 academic year. The reason we're dealing with it is that the computer systems that handle room selection would have to be substantially revised to allow mixed genders, and we may get to explain that it just can't happen that fast.

Also, it looks as though we get to explain why at least one north campus building can't be made gender-inclusive, because by tradition, it's women only, and may have been built with an endowment or bequest that required it to stay that way in perpetuity. (We're looking into whether that's actually a requirement or really just tradition.) There's another all-women building that might be desirable to keep that way, because it's on west campus, where upperclassmen live, but that might be more malleable.

I completely get non-discrimination and the diversity and inclusiveness that that brings us, but I'm not sure how this fits into the concept of "inclusiveness." I guess "Don't limit who I can room with!" covers it?

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded