Housing policy reveals lack of trust in students
Michael O'Malley
Editor-in-Chief
While many programs exist that show faith in the Vanderbilt student body, the current residential policies demonstrate that this trust is superficial at best, since Vanderbilt students are not being trusted to decide with whom they live.
Vanderbilt does not currently allow co-ed habitation on campus, and this causes many problems.
The foremost issue is the hypocritical nature of this decision. By coercing students to sign the Honor Code pledge, Vanderbilt conveys that it trusts students to make the right choices, yet the University insists that students cannot properly decide with whom to live.
Vanderbilt attempts to create a residential campus, where the vast majority of students lives on campus. By not offering co-ed habitation, however, Vanderbilt gives an incentive for students who want to live with a member of the opposite sex to move off campus.
These residential policies discriminate against individuals based on sexual orientation. Homosexual partners are able to live together, while heterosexual partners are not.
Homosexual individuals, furthermore, may feel uncomfortable living with those of their own sex. Since Vanderbilt does not offer co-ed habitation, the University is not providing an opportunity out of these uncomfortable living conditions.
While it is true that single rooms are available, confinement to single rooms severely limits the living options of homosexuals.
Vanderbilt should change its residential policies to allow for co-ed habitation in Mayfields, Chaffins, doubles and triples in Morgan and Lewis and Towers suites.
It is important to acknowledge that this policy change would merely offer co-ed habitation. It is simply allowing an opportunity to live with a member of the opposite sex.
This new proposal would not cost a dime. It would not require new faculty or even need enforcement. This is simply the change of an unjust and hypocritical policy.
Even if a student does not want to live with a member of the opposite sex, he should still support co-ed habitation in order to restore the appearance of trust in the integrity of the student body.
Questions will certainly arise when considering co-ed habitation.
Many people, for instance, may be concerned that couples who are living together could break up in the middle of a semester and want to relocate.
While this is possible, one must recognize that friends can currently live together, and there is the possibility of the relationship ending.
Unless one opposes allowing friends to be room-mates, then, he should agree that it is not Vanderbilt's place to prevent people from living together for fear that their relationship will end.
Another concern might be an increase in sexual assault.
McTyeire is co-ed by room. That situation is comparable to people sharing a Mayfield, for example.
In essence, the policy change would not entail a greater risk of sexual assault than that which currently exists.
Let us demonstrate that we can make proper decisions.
Let us reject these hypocritical and unjust policies and free ourselves from the cold, clasped claws of Vanderbilt's residential oppression.