calbear on May 5, 2009 at 6:20 PM

Yep, looks like there’s some spinning going on.

Mr. Y-not’s institution recently weighed this issue and in their case, at least, the calculation was 100% about keeping the college competitive for the best students by offering the full range of housing options. Political correctness had nothing to do with it.

Basically, the message is that if you’re a parent and you are concerned about these things (which you should be) pay attention to the details before you write that check. At the U of C, at least, all that would mean is making sure your kid signed up to live in a single-sex dorm. I gather at Stanford you’d want to keep your kid out of a co-op.

College is supposed to be about learning to think independently, not conforming to those around you for the sake of political correctness or not offending someone.

I suppose that’s the one upside of the parents yanking the funds: This woman’s going to have to learn how to make a choice in which she’s going to have to either confront someone or quickly find life even more uncomfortable.

As is stated in the article, the consensus process, even when devoid of the nasty politics of the article I linked to, is brutal and long (seven hours in this case), one in which every person must be happy with every detail decided upon. It’s not a process that is very agreeable to amendment. She might have to leave her friends behind (with sore feelings and a budget problem) and desperately look for last-minute housing. I’d offer her my extra room, but, seeing as how I’m male, that would kind of defeat the whole purpose of her moving out.

But yeah; this is being misrepresented as a consequence of some sort of LGBT agenda rather than a consequence of co-ops being autonomous.

What is as disturbing to me is the “don’t rock the boat” attitude. Consensus, consmenshus; take a stand if you’re not comfortable with the situation you ended up in. College is supposed to be about learning to think independently, not conforming to those around you for the sake of political correctness or not offending someone.

Also, I found the same “story” about the Stanford student that’s quoted above re-told as being about a University of Chicago student, so I wonder if there’s a little bit of internet mythos going on here.

Audous Huxley was right.

There is always BYU.

Heck, Berkeley has single-gender dorms (as in, the entire structure has rooms for only one gender). But, again, this is about a (barely-)adult woman who chose to live in a co-op (not a dorm) and now has to choose among her living partners (who caused the situation) and her parents (who cut off her funding).

The thing is, as Snidely Whiplash noted, most colleges have hundreds of students in de facto mixed-gender rooms. The difference here is that the daughter actually told her mother of the situation. Somehow I think her being punished doubly for this (first by being assigned the room, then by having her parents cut off her funds) is not going to foster closer family ties.

Y-not, I don’t think the school has any obligation to the parents since their child is a legal adult and the parents are simply paying the rent on their behalf.
DWSC on May 5, 2009 at 2:29 PM

I’m sure you’re right. The university lawyers have probably been through all of these issues with a fine tooth comb and I’m not a lawyer. But it does seem odd to me that the folks who are responsible for paying for the housing are not the ones making the selection. The university would be apprised of which students are dependents (financially) through the financial aid office, so it seems disingenuous to me for the university to behave as if the parents weren’t part of the equation.

It’s been a zillion years since I was in school, but I don’t recall signing anything like a lease agreement for my dorm room. Had I trashed my dorm room, the university’s recourse would have been to kick me off campus. Under the logic used here they couldn’t really hit me with a bill and expect me to pay for it and they certainly couldn’t send the bill to my parents. Kind of an odd situation to give someone access to something expensive (like a dorm room) without making any attempt to ensure that they would be financially responsible for (or capable of paying) the damages. Had I been living in an apartment off-campus, I doubt I could have passed the financial background check for an apartment… I’m sure my parents would have had to sign off on any lease.

But, yeah, ultimately although I don’t think this is a good arrangement, it all boils down to how the parents raised their kids… so it’s a little hard to get worked up about it.

When the sexual assault charges start mounting, I’ll be very interested to see Stanford explain.

MadisonConservative on May 5, 2009 at 11:58 AM

Excellent point. Frightening how these bastions of women’s liberation may end up making them into victims instead.

Now if you’ll excuse me, there are some damn kids on the lawn again.

she doesn’t want to upset everyone’s consensus arrangements

This is clearly one of the liberal co-ops at Stanford that works by consensus. I think the author is mistaken that this is part of the “Gender Neutral option.” Co-ops are not dorms and pretty much do as they please, from requiring various chores to having only vegetarian food options available. In some sense this is the university version of federalism, where each co-op can try their own thing and see what works for their population. And, in theory, everyone has veto power. In practice, though, here’s what happens to dissenting voices when “consensus” is the rule in Stanford organizations.

Assuming that most students who are living in dorms are supported by their parents, it seems to me that the university as “landlord” should have to work with the people paying the “rent.”

Y-not, I don’t think the school has any obligation to the parents since their child is a legal adult and the parents are simply paying the rent on their behalf. You might have an argument if the student was still under 18. It really has to be the parents who talk to their kids, and refuse to pay for housing if they live in a co-ed bedroom. Let the student raise hell at the school himself. If the schools are doing this because students “demand” it, then the students need to demand it the other way.

You keep talking about the parents wishes and desires, but I bet 9 times out of 10, the kids want the same thing.

DWSC on May 5, 2009 at 2:15 PM

Oh, I’m sure you’re right… maybe not 9 out of 10, but I’m sure a majority of students would want single sex rooms. Particularly freshmen girls.

Having said that, the part I question is the legality of keeping the people who are paying for the room in the dark about the nature of the room. Assuming that most students who are living in dorms are supported by their parents, it seems to me that the university as “landlord” should have to work with the people paying the “rent.”

djm1992 on May 5, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Back when I was at Stanford (20+ years ago) there were some dorms with coed bathrooms. They had separate toilet stalls and separate shower stalls, but still not much privacy.

Unsanctioned coed rooms were not uncommon either. My suite-mate had his girlfriend sleep over almost every night. I had the middle room, which she had to go through every morning to exit. At least they tried to be quiet after midnight.

Given the sexual liberality on many college campuses, I don’t think coed rooms is going to increase the sexual activity of the students. Even in my more liberal youth, the last thing I’d want to do is get involved with someone I HAD to share a room with.

Seriously tho, this should be an opt-in only program.

Yeah, I agree.

It also seems weird to me that, notwithstanding the educational privacy regulations, the folks paying the bill are not in the loop in the process of selecting the room.

Prepare for the new “sleepwalking” defense.

Or violent night terrors.

Seriously tho, this should be an opt-in only program.

*sigh*

If parents don’t want “gender neutral” housing for their children, they need to talk with their money, the only voice the university will allow them.

I think these housing arrangements are a really bad idea, but parents do have another option — before “talk[ing] with their money” they should try talking with their kids. I guarantee that there is no way my sister or I would have wound up with this living arrangement. We knew our parents would not have tolerated it. End of story.

Colleges seem to be drifting toward this arrangement for marketing reasons. They want to ensure that campus housing is as appealing to anyone willing to pay for it as they possibly can make it. It’s really not a nefarious plan to shift society’s mores — at least not in most cases. It’s just salesmanship.

True gender neutrality. Coed group showers.

blink on May 5, 2009 at 11:45 AM

Back when I was in grad school, I remember reading in the student newspaper about a another pilot program at Stanford -either in a residence hall, or in a co-ed fraternity sanctioned by the university (I can’t remember which, as it’s been several years). One of the unique -features: co-ed bathrooms, including showers. The article even had a photograph of two guys and a girl (her back to the camera)in a typical-looking communal shower.

I’m guessing that they were happy with the results of this experiment, so they’re finally moving on to the next step…

Don’t “transgender” folks feel uncomfortable all the time anyway, by definition?

Omigosh. Your logic is unassailable.

My kids both tanked in junior college (lack of give-a-crap), before they ever got to a university — and I think I’m starting to be glad. I’d rather they be financially poor than morally bankrupt.

Right. Or morally and financially bankrupt.

My oldest is only six and I can’t help but be frightened by what “forward-thinking” universities will consider to be “progressive” in 12 years.

Kim Priestap on May 5, 2009 at 11:56 AM

Don’t panic! In 10 to 12 yrars Shari’a will be in style (if not the law) with the full burqa obligatory and strict segregation the rule.

This could be a brief trend, until the first sex harassment lawsuit that gets filed against a university over actions resulting from the co-ed living arrangements.

jon1979 on May 5, 2009 at 12:53 PM

How could these numbnuts go from one extreme to the other and set up situations that could result in either sexual assaults or false allegations? What idiots.

Laura in Maryland on May 5, 2009 at 12:55 PM

You get the impression that the Libs didn’t think this one through to its logical end.

So do not blame the Military, this level of stupidity requires an advanced degree from an “elite” school.

LincolntheHun on May 5, 2009 at 11:55 AM

I am not “blaming” the military at all. Sheesh. I am saying that this gender-politics junk has infiltrated the military specifically with these sleeping arrangements, and it never turns out well. Granted those co-ed arrangements in the military are rare, yet it remains a goal of gender-neutrality proponents.

I remember reading about co-ed sleeping arrangements in combat areas a while back. No, I don’t have a link. I asked my husband about it (Active Duty Chap./served in combat recently & multiple times) and he said it is rare, depends on different commands and situations, and would change with the request of the CH or someone else.

My point being that experiments with this social engineering, the military being one example, never turns out well (promiscuity, unwanted pregnancy, sexual harrassment, breakdown of morale and mission, etc.).

How could these numbnuts go from one extreme to the other and set up situations that could result in either sexual assaults or false allegations? What idiots.