Well, here is a new idea. Guilford College students think that coed dorms are not quite progressive enough ... why not coed rooms? Or ... as they call it, "Gender Blind" rooms.
"The theory of it is a reasonable theory," Guilford College President Kent Chabotar said. "The fact that we stereotypically put two males or two females in a single room and don't put mixed genders because we're afraid something unpuritanical would happen is illogical."
I think Chabotar is not only gender blind ... he appears to be blind to basic human nature and sexuality as well.
... more from the article ...
Aaron Fetrow, Guilford's dean for campus life, said, "Men living with men and women living with women is a traditional notion that we keep the sexes apart until they're married.
"They're saying that's kind of a heterosexist view. It assumes men and women want to hook up together and have sex when maybe they don't."
"We can't have gender-blind with freshmen," Fetrow said. "They're not ready developmentally for that."
...snip...
"I think it's a wonderful alternative for people who either are transgender or feel more comfortable with the opposite sex," said Alison Tynes, a Guilford College sophomore.
Steve Walton, a sophomore, said, "I don't think it would be a problem here because the population is extremely small. I think it could be a problem at a bigger school. Everyone here seems to know each other."
Senior Sara Poznik said Guilford "prizes itself on being about equality and fairness in meeting student needs."
The reasons for same-sex housing are outdated, she said, "especially at a school like this."
Analysis:
"The fact that we stereotypically put two males or two females in a single room and don't put mixed genders because we're afraid something unpuritanical would happen is illogical."
Why? What planet is Chabotar from? Apparently Chabotar is clueless about what it is like to be a healthy 19 year old male.
"They're saying that's kind of a heterosexist view. It assumes men and women want to hook up together and have sex when maybe they don't."
Heterosexist? How about ... common sense.
"We can't have gender-blind with freshmen," Fetrow said. "They're not ready developmentally for that."
How in the heck can Fetrow make this claim with a straight face? An 18 year old male is not ready developmentally, but a 19 year old is? Sounds like puritanical thinking to me ... definitely not appropriate in our time. How heterosexist of Fetrow to make such an oppressive claim.
"I don't think it would be a problem here because the population is extremely small. I think it could be a problem at a bigger school. Everyone here seems to know each other."
I see. People are much more likely to have sex with people they don't know, therefore, it is safer to let guys and gals who know each other sleep together in the same room and expect them to not have sex.
Senior Sara Poznik said Guilford "prizes itself on being about equality and fairness in meeting student needs." The reasons for same-sex housing are outdated, she said, "especially at a school like this."
I think many students would agree that unlimited sex is a basic student need. It would only be fair for Guilford College to find ways to meet this need, right?
Friends, this article is completely laughable. I understand moral confusion among today's college students. The fact that school administrators are engaging in this discussion and making such completely naive and foolish statements is not laughable, however -- it is scary.
Think moral relativism is really just a scare tactic engineered by the Dobsons and Mohlers of the evangelical right ? ... perhaps, but perhaps not ... spend a day at Guilford College ... a school founded by the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) ... and you tell me.
Think moral relativism is really just a scare tactic engineered by the Dobsons and Mohlers of the evangelical right ?
While I agree that this policy is problematic, and I wouldn't want to send my kids to a school with "co-ed dorm rooms," I don't see this as a simple problem of "moral relativism." There's a strong moral current underpinning this policy, which could be considered "fundamentalist" in its own way: sex and sexuality ought to be open and available to young unmarried people, and everyone ought to reject "heterosexist" notions of modesty. I doubt there's much sentiment among the promoters of this policy that a more modest view of sexuality is an equally valid alternative. So it's not so much a relativist morality as it is a wrong -- gravely wrong -- one.
Posted by: dopderbeck | February 03, 2006 at 14:32
Great post. We have so much of which to be proud in Greensboro.
The president of this college needs to be demoted, but he likely will not be.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | February 03, 2006 at 15:52
"I don't see this as a simple problem of "moral relativism." There's a strong moral current underpinning this policy, which could be considered "fundamentalist" in its own way"
I see your point. There is no evidence that the viewpoint expressed by those wanting coed rooms is tolerant of other viewpoints (other viewpoints were labelled as outdated, puritanical etc). Not very pluralistic language.
The supreme ethic is "whatever makes me happy" -- sex, coed roomies, trying to find meaning in a cause of "equality and fairness" ... or whatever.
"We have so much of which to be proud in Greensboro."
And this is just Guilford College ... wait till we start looking at what takes place at UNC-Greensboro!
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | February 03, 2006 at 22:40
WOW, now I went to a liberal college, but this would not have even been considered. Relativism is rampant and enraging. Here are some rather scarry statistics on rape on college campus.
College Rape Statistics
25% of college women have been victims of rape.
8.5% of college men admit to sexually abusing women - but don't consider that rape.
Of the women who were raped, only 25% described it as rape.
Of the women who were raped, only 10% reported the assault.
47% of the rapes were by dates and romantic acquaintances.
Date Rape Statistics
84% of women who were date raped knew their attacker.
Women who are 16-24 are more than four times as likely to be date raped.
90% of date rapes occur when either th
e victim or attacker was drinking.
33% of men said they would date rape someone if it could go undetected.
44% of women who were date raped have considered suicide.
So mis together drinking on campus, co-ed rooms, 33% of men looking for the right opportunity to rape a woman, and what have you got? Some really bad situations for sure. The above statistics were found at
http://womensissues.about.com/od/rapecrisis/a/rapestats.htm
Posted by: Carl Holmes | February 04, 2006 at 23:18
As I have told you before, Bad Idea.
I would be for the the same reason guys arn't allowed to room with girls on Highschool Feild trips. The idea that that level of maturity is reached in the short summer between Highschool and College would be optimistic to the point of stupidity. More so in light of the fact that even Mature adults don't have that capcity. The temptaion is just to great.
And since I pretty much repeating everything you just said? I am done.
-Molly
Posted by: Molly | February 06, 2006 at 15:47
Jeff:Apparently Chabotar is clueless about what it is like to be a healthy 19 year old male.Apparently "heterosexual" is part of Jeff's definition of "healthy." :)
Seriously, though, while I think this is something of a silly idea, I don't think it's anywhere near so radical (or so disastrous) as you seem to think. I've known plenty of young men and women who've lived together without having sex. I've also known plenty of young men and women who've had sex (lots of it) without living together. Anecdotally, at least, it doesn't seem to have much to do with living together. In fact, in my college days, I personally spent the night in a girl's dorm, with the girl present, with no debauchery going on. Despite your utter lack of faith in our youth, it can be done. :) (For the record, my Christian college had co-ed floors, but no co-ed rooms.)
Admittedly, sharing a room is going to give more opportunity to a couple that wants to have sex. But assuming you've already instilled the proper values in them, this shouldn't be a problem. At some point (hopefully by adulthood!) you've gotten to a point where you can stop sheltering your children from temptation and actually expect them to overcome it.
And your attempt to tie this into "moral relativism" is silly. You're essentially arguing that a male and a female cannot share a dorm, apartment, home, whatever, without sinnin, and that the very idea of them living together -- even if they don't have sex -- is somehow immoral.
People are going to have extramarital sex whether or not they live together. It would seem that the focus should be more on the sex than on the living arrangement, if indeed that's your concern.
Carl:
While the rape statistics are indeed sobering, I'm not sure they're entirely relevant here. Most rapes happen outside the home (temporary or not), not inside it. Meanwhile, a fair number happen inside marriages. So I'm not sure living arrangments have much at all to do with it.
I should note that I've known several victims of rape (some of them very close friends), and I know (almost) first-hand the horrible impact it can have on a woman. It is not something to be taken lightly under any circumstances, and certainly not something to be exploited as a rhetorical tool. It is a very serious matter.
I don't really think it was your intent to exploit rape statistics in this manner, but it would be easy for someone not familiar with your commenting to misconstrue you thusly. I'm just letting you know, so you can keep it in mind for the future.
Posted by: tgirsch | February 06, 2006 at 22:52
"Despite your utter lack of faith in our youth, it can be done."
tgirsch, Sure it can be done, but only if, as you said, "instilled the proper values". Otherwise, as a "Youth" myself I find this quite... stupid if you don't mind me saying. Safe Sex is more a "proper Value" today that Abstinence ever will be. Even friends and acquaintances at school who are far beyond the College age, speak of a time where they're out of their parent's reach to "Do what they want." Would I put these same students in Co-ed dorms so that they have more of a temptation? It would be like giving a theif a gun, and putting him in front of a Store and then saying "Don't rob this place."
"It would seem that the focus should be more on the sex than on the living arrangement, if indeed that's your concern."
I think that is what we're saying here. Why put your hand in the fire if you know it burns. Vice Versa, why put students in that situation if we know those are battles regualar teens fight daily?
Posted by: Molly | February 07, 2006 at 23:09
"who are far beyond the College age"
Forgive me... I meant "far beneath..."
Posted by: Molly | February 07, 2006 at 23:11
Molly:Otherwise, as a "Youth" myself I find this quite... stupid if you don't mind me sayingPerhaps so, but at some point, you have to start relying on adults to act like adults.It would be like giving a theif a gun, and putting him in front of a Store and then saying "Don't rob this place."I don't think that's quite the same thing. :) And in this case, it was God who gave them both the "gun" (ifyaknowwhatimean) and the desire to use it.Vice Versa, why put students in that situation if we know those are battles regualar teens fight daily?Ignoring for the moment that they're not really "teens" any more (at least not how we normally think of "teens") this gets back to my original point: you can't shelter them forever. And it may sound defeatist, but if they really want to, they're going to do it anyway.
Perhaps your experience with youth is different than mine, but my experience has been that we have a tendency to set our expectations too low for our kids and that this carries over into young adulthood. If you treat kids with a measure of respect, you'll be surprised at the results it often yields.
Am I saying that nobody's ever going to have sex under a co-ed dorm policy? Of course not. What I'm saying is that the vast majority of the ones who do would have done it anyway. [Cynical joke]Co-ed living would more closely emulate a marriage, so if you want to put an end to the sex, maybe co-ed living is the way to go! :)[/Cynical joke]
Posted by: tgirsch | February 08, 2006 at 18:44
Had to post on my site about this one...wow. We teach our kids that they are animals; why are we surprised when they act like it?
Posted by: Byron | February 27, 2006 at 19:19