At its meeting April 5, the Student Life Committee (SLC) asked Dean of Student Life and Services Charlene Cole-Newkirk to write a co-ed housing proposal.
In about three weeks, SLC will reconvene and discuss Cole-Newkirk's proposal. If the SLC accepts the proposal, a co-ed housing option could be instituted without approval from the General Faculty (GF) and Board of Trustees.
However, Cole said that before co-ed housing can be instituted, the impact the decision will have on housing and the availability of suitable rooms must be considered. Before Cole drafts her proposal, she will consult with other deans and administrators and also conduct an all-student survey. The survey will assess how many students are interested in a co-ed housing option. "We need to get a feel for the community," Cole-Newkirk said. "How many spaces are we talking about?"
Cole-Newkirk said that in three weeks she will have a better sense of when such a housing option can be implemented at Oberlin, after more administrators have been consulted and students surveyed.
President Nancy Dye is going to meet with members of the General Faculty Council and find out how faculty feel about the proposal. While the GF's approval is not necessary for the passing of the proposal, their feelings will help shape what finally does or does not happen.
Cole-Newkirk said the co-ed housing option might not be required to go before the GF because it might be, from a "practical standpoint, a minor housing change," because no written rule prohibits co-ed housing.
At its March 8 meeting, SLC passed recommendations to the original Housing and Dining co-ed housing proposal, but did not pass the introduction to the proposal or the rationale. The Housing and Dining proposal was prompted by a Student Senate proposal passed two years ago.
The recommendations suggest that members of the opposite gender be allowed to live "on a small scale" in the existing co-ed sections of selected residence halls and only in divided doubles and/or quads. Students under the age of 18 would not be eligible for this housing option, nor would students be randomly placed with roommates of the opposite sex.
After passing SLC on March 8, the recommendations would have gone before the General Faculty (GF). If passed by the GF, they would have been brought before the Board of Trustees.
But Dye asked to consult with the SLC at its meeting and discuss the proposal with committee members. Dye said she was concerned about the SLC's consultation process. She also asked whether all of the issues that could arise as a result of implementing co-ed housing had been examined.
Dye had not seen the co-ed housing proposal until the SLC meeting.
Dye asked if there was a stated policy prohibiting students from living together. Sandra Hougland, the manager of housing and dining assignments, said no written rule preventing students of opposite gender from housing together currently exists. There is, however, an "unwritten assumption," she said, and if students tried to apply for opposite-sex housing, they would be prevented from doing so.
Cole-Newkirk said she had not seen evidence of a lot of "broad consultation" with others, particularly admissions, about how they feel about co-ed housing, or the issues that would arise from offering such a housing option. She said she felt SLC should have taken more time to discuss the proposal before making a decision.
One of the issues brought up by Dye was that a lot of Oberlin's residence halls were constructed 30 to 40 years ago and not built to house same-sex couples. Most rooms are single-room doubles, and residence halls lack more modern types of on-campus housing, such as apartments. Dye said, "We haven't thought about how to reconfigure residence halls for a new generation."
Dye said she had no problem with co-ed living in housing that was conducive to such an arrangement.
Jonathan Williams, associate director of admissions, said there is a lot of concern in the Office of Admissions regarding the impact which Oberlin's passing a formal policy would have on prospective students, and how such a policy would be advertised. Williams said he has spent a lot of time talking to parents who are concerned about co-ed dorms and co-ed bathrooms.
"[The proposal]," Williams said, "is not something that doesn't have far-reaching impact outside of the community."
Some of that impact would be felt especially in a time of fundraising, when the feelings of potential donors should be considered more than ever, Gloria White, associate dean of academic services, said.
Senior Hal Connolly, a member of the SLC, said he felt that a lot of discussion about the co-ed housing proposal had occurred since it was proposed by Student Senate. "I don't think the process was all that out of line," Connolly said.
Dye said that neither the director of admissions nor the faculty committee had any knowledge that the co-ed rooms proposal was being considered by the SLC. "It came as a surprise to many parts of campus," Dye said.
Whether it is even necessary to create a written policy sanctioning a co-ed housing option was also discussed, and it was eventually decided that any change in practice will be described in a formal policy, though such a change would not be added to the Regulations book. According to Associate Professor of Chemistry Michael Nee, SLC chair, any change that is made will be written somewhere.
Before that conclusion was arrived at, Dye pointed out that other institutions, such as Wesleyan University, allow co-ed housing arrangements to exist on-campus, but lack official policies offering any such housing option to students. "Why, is a written policy deemed necessary if no written policy to the contrary exists?" Dye asked.
Professor of Politics Chris Howell, a member of the SLC, responded by saying that the co-ed housing proposal was "clearly in response to a situation," and that if students of opposite gender tried to apply for a room, they would be told they could not live together.
Howell said he would be satisfied with an unofficial change of practice. Members suggested the proposal be called something other than the co-ed rooms proposal, because that label gives outsiders the perception that students would be living in a single open-double, rather than what is two rooms with a wall between them.
Sophomore Andreas Pape, a member of SLC, said he was pleased with the meeting. "I was afraid at first that the administration was just trying to delay [a decision on co-ed housing] as opposed to any kind of action."
Sophomore Blair Heiserman, a member of Student Senate, said he feels the decision reached by administration and SLC is acceptable. "Basically we're getting what we want, which works for me," he said.
Student Life Committee discusses co-ed rooms (4/5/96)
Co-ed rooms should be students' choice (4/12/96)
Review did justice to co-ed topic (4/5/96)
Copyright © 1996, The Oberlin Review.
Volume 124, Number 20; April 12, 1996
Contact Review webmaster with suggestions or comments at ocreview@www.oberlin.edu.
Contact Review editorial staff at oreview@oberlin.edu.
