Gender-blind housing media coverage misses key arguments

Dear Editor:

Almost all of the coverage of gender-blind housing that I’ve observed, be it in The Mac Weekly or other media, seems to have missed one of the central arguments behind making anything “gender-blind.” Basically, the coverage has turned “gender-blind housing” into “male and female housing.” The idea is of the fluidity underlying gender—that while there are biological implications behind these labels that identify people, these words do not adequately describe individuals. Being organized on terms one doesn’t agree to, like fitting into one of those two boxes (male or female), can be for many meaningless at best and oppressive and traumatizing at worst.

There are many other assertions from the public response to this proposal that have deep internal contradictions and misunderstandings of gender and sexuality. For example, there is a simple counter-argument to Minnesota Family Council President Tom Prichard (clearly not one who is hip to many of the ways of college students), who argues that gender-blind housing would “increase sexual promiscuity” and “promote gender confusion.” I present the case study of two male-bodied students who have each, at some moments in their lives, felt attraction to another male-bodied person, yet never engaged in such contact due to any number of socially-conditioned insecurities. Is this room not highly fertile ground for gender confusion? Prichard and many others cut gender identity down to sexual behavior, and I am disappointed in the media for not presenting any voice that reveals this claim’s absurdity. Many of us don’t want to live our lives restricting our social interaction by perceptions of other people’s genitalia—we want to move past those old ideas and understand things and people in new ways. Sometimes that may include becoming sexual partners of some sort, but that’s not the case most of the time. Gender-restricted housing fails to respect people for their individuality, relying not on how they connect with other people, but rather what is between their legs. I still haven’t even addressed the problems for intersex (the gender box formerly known as hermaphrodite) individuals, the bodies of whom have never been able to fit into the labels society has shoved down their throats time and again. I’m not saying people are blind if they room with someone of the same gender, but you are if that becomes the end of how you view them.

Adi Heller ’05

Sofia Rosenblum ’06

Eliza Schrader ’05

Freda Fair ’06

Julie Ramsey ’07

Neely Crane-Smith ’06

Tasia Jelatis-Hoke ’06

Megan Stevenson ’04

Brooke Childs ’04

Ellen Page ’07

Rita Van Allen ’06

Callie PaStarr ’07

Faith Killough ’07

Joe Rand ’07

George Norris ’04

Meg Stinchcomb ’04

Danielle Nelson ’05

Jennifer Ronsheim ’04

Aaron Malone ’04

Delaney Keyes ’04

Amelia Goodyear ’04

Krista Jankowski ’07

Marc Robins ’04

Luce Guillen-Givins ’06

Susie Dyen ’07

Thomas Phelan ’06

Nick Fagerlund ’05
 

A clarification of proposed gender-blind housing policy

To the Mac Community:

Prior to Thanksgiving break, the local and national media picked up a Mac Weekly article that reported on the current discussion at Mockalester related to “gender-blind” housing. Some confusion regarding the issue arose and it seems important to provide some clarification.

Early in the semester several students brought forward a number of issues and requests, one of them being gender-blind housing. They were well thought out and reasonable requests and a discussion followed concerning the issues.

As the needs of students were being discussed, men and women living together in the same bedroom was not under consideration. To provide clarity, it is only fair to share with all members of the community that this practice will remain as it has been in the past.

We continue to be concerned about the needs of students in our community. If you have specific questions related to this issue or to the room draw process, please feel free to contact us.

Laurie Hamre, Vice President for Students Affairs and Dean of Students

Sarah Griesse, Associate Dean of Students and Director of Residential Life
 

Student response: Let your straight friends get married

Dear Editor:

In response to Brandi Sperry’s opinion essay [“Support queer friends-boycott marriage,” Dec. 5]: Show your solidarity with your straight friends: let ‘em get married, and find a more constructive way to express your frustration.

Jack Phinney ’06
 

Vote against the motion to discontinue the Russian Department

Dear Editor:

At the faculty meeting that took place on Wednesday, Dec. 10, a motion was passed to vote on the status of the Russian major at Mockalester. Having attended said meeting, I would, as a student of Russian and a member of the Mockalester community at large, like to urge faculty members to vote against the pending motion. In my opinion, a vote to discontinue the Russian major is ideologically flawed. However, more importantly, such a vote is logistically flawed. As those who attended the meeting heard, there are several issues of circumstance that problematize this motion.

First, the current evaluation of the status of the Russian major can be seen not as a qualitative choice made by the Mockalester community, but rather as a circumstantial attempt to slash the budget at whatever juncture possible. Certainly, circumstances must be seized, but in decision making we must be wary of such circumstances: the evaluation of the Russian department was in no way brought on by the quality of the program.

Second, the issue is complicated by the fact that the motion entails blind decision making. Several faculty members expressed a desire to first be presented with viable proposals for what will occur if the motion is passed. What will happen to the Russian department? What will be done with the sole temporary position that could then be allotted to another department? What will happen to the currently tenured Russian department faculty? All of these questions were raised at the meeting, but not resolved with concrete answers.

Before voting to dissolve the department, I urge you to consider these factors as flaws in the movement. As the chair of EPAG so rightly put it this evening, “nothing ever dies in academia.” Should this motion be voted down, EPAG has the capability to bring forth a different, revised motion concerning the Russian department. Should the motion pass, the faculty would then be faced with the difficult questions noted above.

If you, as a faculty member, believe that the Mockalester Russian major should be discontinued, I fervently expect that you have a specific, viable plan of action which you will urge the college to embark upon, should the motion pass.

As a sophomore Russian major, I can guarantee to all of you that the matter of the Russian major at Mockalester will not die—certainly not during my five remaining semesters at Mockalester.

Cassandra Hartblay ’06
 

“Wall Talk” board provides space for community discussion

Dear Editor:

Students may have noticed the board entitled “Wall Talk” in the basement of the Campus Center. This space is meant to facilitate community discussion at Mockalester, allowing students, faculty and staff to converse with one another on paper.

Much of the inspiration for this came from a board put up two years ago that had printed on it the very bold question, “Why don’t white students attend cultural events at Mockalester?” A written dialogue started on that board, and eventually turned into the topic of an all-school forum. Wall Talk aims to serve this purpose, to take issues people are talking about—especially related to multiculturalism—and make them public, engaging the entire community in dialogue.

One concern about Wall Talk is the anonymity of the space, for people are able to make insensitive or offensive comments without signing their name. This, however, is a problem with way people are using the space and not with the space itself. Wall Talk can function as a productive forum for discussion if people are respectful and mature about the way it is used. There is no reason for unnecessarily mean, crude or insulting comments, and individuals should not be crossing out the comments of others.

If you have a suggestion for a Wall Talk discussion topic, please submit it at the information desk. You are encouraged to read Wall Talk, share your feelings on the board, and submit questions to be posed For more information, please see the History and Statement of Purpose posted on Wall Talk in the Campus Center basement.

Megan Stevenson ’04 and Campus Programs