Gender-Neutral Housing Tabled in New Haven, Yale still trailing Everyone
The YDN reported yesterday that gender-neutral housing would continue NOT to be offered in the Yale residential college system next year. While the Elis busted out their intergalactic decision-making body, the "Council of Masters," the University wanted further study before implementing what would have been a college-wide housing policy to allow mixed-gender rooming groups, a change that the University believes has only existed on smaller scales at other schools. The policy is particularly relevant to the LGBT community who have long fought for gender-neutral rights on campuses nationwide.
To make matters worse, Harvard already solved the scale issue a couple years ago by allowing students to apply for gender-neutral housing on a case by case basis. Last year, students were also given the option to select "transgender" on housing forms, one further step towards transparency in the process. Likewise, Brown implemented a pilot-program in 2008 that expanded a 2003 program and now allows about a third of non-freshman rooms to be gender-neutral. Cornell, Dartmouth, and Penn have all had comparable programs in place since 2007.
So what gives, Yale? Everyone thought you guys were open-minded and stuff, but now you're starting to come off as a bit of a bigot about all this issue. (Oh, and Princeton, too.) Read student respones and sign up for the sleep-in after the jump.
The rejection has already started a series of protests and sleep-ins. The Facebook group is already 484 strong, and people are changing their profile pics for the cause, like whoa! On the YDN site, commenters are getting not-too rowdy but at least both sides are represented. She be rhetoric:
In a world where parietal rules are gone, and Yale no longer policies the interactions of men and women on a daily basis or checks who sleeps where, it seems ridiculous to maintain this one formal vestige of segregation, a sop to gender mores whose time is long gone. The argument that somehow, separating men and women rigidly for rooming purposes somehow makes Yalies less licentious or otherwise more well-behaved is an insult to our intelligence.
She be straight up:
I am ashamed that Yale is even seriously considering this new policy.
And there's the sleep-in, which is actually taking place outdoors. It feels like 10º in New Haven right now. It's gonna feel like a lot less tonight. (Sign up here.) So while this is a really good spot to make a statement about sharing sleeping bags, here's a selection from the "We Support Gender Neutral Housing at Yale" wishlist of anti-frostbite equipment:
You definitely need:
snowproof boots
at least 1 (if not 2) pairs of thick, wool, NOT COTTON socks
multiple layers of pants:
this can include snow pants, under armor/long underwear, sweatpants
something you can be outside of the tent in, and at least long underwear and/or heavy duty sweatpants to sleep in
multiple layers of shirts:
underarmour/long underwear next to skin is better than cotton. Fleeces, down, extra sweatshirts
Jackets: the warmer the better
HAT:
you will need to sleep in a hat, it needs to be warm, and it needs to cover your ears
gloves, scarves, etc. the warmer, more waterproof, and more plentiful the better....Also bring: tarps, handwarmers if you have them and extra blankets, sleeping pads, etc. things you think would help
Will somebody tell these kids that the sky barfed about a foot of snow on the Northeast yesterday? Yale needs to learn how to party like Dartmouth—and make maybe take a hint from their housing policies, too.
14 Comments | 
| 
Print This Post
Read more: Gender-Neutral, protest, Yale, Yale Daily News, YDN
Email – 
Search
About
Follow us on Twitter
Report a bug
Archives
RSS Feed
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:37 pm
I always wondered why colleges did this. I can understand not wishing to be randomly assigned to room with someone of the opposite sex, but if both persons are willing, at least inquire about that preference. This is particularly asinine when it comes to later year housing decisions, in which friends elect to live together. Barring a male and female from sharing a room is nonsense when a gay couple can, at the age of 18, make the disastrous decision to do so*.
* – Seriously, sharing a dorm in college? Has this ever not ended in disaster?
Beeteedubs, Adam Clark Estes– keep up the fine blog content. You’re doin’ good.
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Columbia also has no policy at all regarding gender-neutral housing. Check columbia.genderblind.org to become part of the initiative!
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Er…and why should we care again?
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:18 pm
I couldn’t care less about this. I’m not joining the “We support gender neutral housing” group on facebook, nor am I joining the opposing group. It’s just one more thing for people to protest when their time could be better spent elsewhere. I’m sure the administration will get around to it eventually, but I have a little hunch they might have bigger issues to deal with right now. Like that missing $8 billion.
March 3rd, 2009 at 7:30 pm
I don’t see why we should have to change longstanding policies to satisfy the 1% of the trannie weirdos whom it inconveniences and who should not have been accepted in the first place.
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:26 pm
adam.
you’re not funny at all.
and we get it, you went to harvard, and it’s your favorite.
ivygate blows MORE now? didn’t think it was possible.
March 3rd, 2009 at 10:01 pm
I’ve got an idea. Why not just deny trannies admittance in the first place?!
Aside: Adam, let’s keep the harvard ass-kissing to an absolute minimum or I’m not reading IvyGate anymore. I can’t even remember the last time a harvard student commented on this blog.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:19 pm
What’s up with the ridiculous tranny hate? Is this really a bias you people harbor?
March 4th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Fellow commenters:
The amount of bigotry in these comments is shocking and disappointing. To everyone who thinks that “trannies” are “weirdos” “who should not have been accepted in the first place”, enjoy your opinion while it lasts, because eventually, everyone who agrees with your close-minded ideas will have died out in a few decades and will be eventually be judged the same way segregationists, slave-owners, and monarchists are judged today.
Honestly, you can’t figure out why people want this? Even the one claiming to be “reason”? I think it’s really a bigger deal than you guys are making it out to be. Even if this did only affect transexuals, why shouldn’t the university implement it? We have a Native American Cultural Center; I’ve met more transexuals here than Native Americans. But it isn’t just about transexuals.
Segregating based on gender is so old-fashioned and arbitrary. If people were forced to only live with people of the same gender, then people would be all up in arms about that. If people were forced to live only with people of the same hair color, people would be protesting the arbitrariness of that policy. This is the same thing; it’s just a (for some reason) more common phenomenon. But it’s arbitrary segregation nonetheless. If someone wants to live with someone not of their birth-assigned gender, regardless of whether or not any of them are transexual, there’s not reason to forbid that. We’re all adults, even though university administrators haven’t realized this yet.
Second, this reaches the greater issue of transparency of and student involvement in administrative decisions. Students were excluded from much of the decision making process, and weren’t sufficiently informed of what was going on in the administration about this issue or who was even making the decisions. The administration has just been disrespectfully blowing off student input on this issue. The administration’s final decision reflects the fact that they care much more about old good-old-boy alumni (think: Bushes, etc.) than current students. And yes, I understand, they want their money, but, unlike “Y11″, I value morality, equality, and respect over money.
So I hope you understand why it’s more important than making “trannies” feel uncomfortable. It touches on major problems and issues that affect everyone in the university.
Now go read a blog that’s a little more relevant than IvyGate.
March 4th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
I was thinking more along the lines of the money needed to keep the school running and continue providing financial aid to 50% of the student population, you asshole. Pretty sure the administration isn’t worried about losing money just for the sake of it. Furthermore, this is obviously a touchy subject that will be complex in implementation, so I don’t hold it against them for taking some time to figure it out. They didn’t say “no,” they said “not yet.”
You, meanwhile, just posted six paragraphs responding to trolls.
March 4th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
You’re calling someone on the internet an asshole, Y11? Grow up and get a life.
Well said, Lake HMM.
March 4th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
While I caught the drift of what LakeHMM was saying and agree whole-heartedly, my attention spam on blog comments is about 10 lines at a maximum. Just call those assholes assholes and be done with it.
March 5th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Actually, you have your demographics backwards.
The majority of people in favor of traditional sexuality morality and traditional views on gender are Conservative Christians.
Conservative Christians reproduce at a much higher rate than their liberal/secular counterparts. Why?
Christians have more pregnancies, use less contraception, have fewer abortions, and are culturally driven toward large families. They also are less likely to engage in homosexuality- which by nature is closed off to pregnancy.
People generally grow up supporting the political and religious positions of their parents, especially their father.
What does this mean?
Conservative Christians will experience a population boom, while secular families will dwindle.
This already occurs in Europe where they have slipped below the replacement level for birthrates.
Even if Christians cannot single handedly out-produce seculars, the decrease in non-religious births will also be joined by increasing immigration from religious Latin American countries and from Muslim countries.
Despite all of the Barack OMGbama zeal, the future is not bright for today’s radical liberals- that includes issues such as gender neutal housing, gay marriage, etc.
March 9th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
@Lake HMM: don’t be hatin on monarchists. I hear they still exist.
http://monarchistamerican.blogspot.com/
http://www.monarchist.ca/new/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/cox_nz/
I could spend forever browsing among monarchist websites. That shit cracks me up. GSTQ.