“Seriously, is there any part of this idea that doesn’t scream ‘stupid’ to every grownup who hears it?”

I couldn’t find one.

CAN YOU?

Author: Jimmy Akin

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."

60 thoughts on ““Seriously, is there any part of this idea that doesn’t scream ‘stupid’ to every grownup who hears it?””

  1. Ugh.
    Ugh.
    Ugh.
    Here are various ideas as to what can be done:
    (A) Nothing, the school administrators have Ph.D.s and know what they are doing.
    (B) Write a letter to the editor.
    (C) Saddle up boys, lock and load.
    (D) Let the Muslims handle it.
    (E) A full-blown revival of the Faith.
    Unfortunately, (A) is probably what too many people think, but this attitude can be combatted with humor. Those schools are stupid!
    (B) can’t hurt, but won’t help much.
    (C) is superficially appealing, but the other side has nukes.
    (D) is currently in the works. I am sure that the school administrators will gladly praise their new overlords, and will do whatever it takes to keep their tenure.
    (E) is the most difficult, or is it the easiest solution?

  2. “Seriously, is there any part of this idea that doesn’t scream ‘stupid’ to every grownup who hears it?”

    No.
    Oh, wait…
    …no. No. There is no part.

  3. As a recent graduate (2 years ago), I can say (looking back with maturity) this is the most idiotic idea I have ever seen. And I have seen some very idiotic things.

  4. You can not reason with people who deny the existence of reason. Logic has no meaning to them. Only power.
    The day is rapidly approaching when Catholics will be faced with only two options: totally reject the faith, or totally reject the Culture of Death.

  5. And I thought efforts to purge native-American inspired mascots from college were absurd. One can only hope that the alumni see this and stop sending in their wampum.

  6. … a way for guys who look like Michael Moore to get a smokin’ hot roommate.
    Actually, I can’t think of anything that would be more aggravating than to be in that situation — having a smokin’ hot girls sleeping in the same room with you every night but having it be completely platonic. And then there would be those nights of coming home to find a sock tied around the doorknob …

  7. Well, honestly, would it really increase people having sex that much? I tend to doubt it. At most if both people are drunk something might happen, or maybe the two would decide to date or become “friends with benefits” because of the convenient location. In general though if two people are going to do it being assigned to different rooms is not going to stop them. All too frequently even the presence of the other roomate in the room isn’t enough to stop them (I had to leave the room several times because of that when I lived in the dorms).
    Also at my college at least people swap rooms to be with their significant others, and are naked in the halls and stuff like that, so I don’t see how this will change a whole lot.
    The main reason I can see for not doing this therefore is not fornication prevention but avoiding awkwardness. Many girls tend not to like changing in front of guys, and for most guys whether he likes it or not changing in front of a girl is not a casual thing to do either.
    Of course even in a same sex situation you tend to avoid changing in front of your roomate if at all possible. But still, it is better to avoid creating potentially uncomfortable situations for people if you can avoid it.

  8. Wait, I was assuming we were talking about random room assignments, which would naturally not be something you would want to be coed for fear of putting someone in a situation they don’t want to be in. But what if two people of different sexes request a room together? An arguement could be drawn about scandal and so forth, but I’m not sure I see a real need to disallow it. In that case even more you are not going to avoid fornication, you are just going to make people feel like their freedom is being restricted.
    Catholic colleges certainly should not allow such things of course because of the scandal element, but for a secular institution I’m not sure if a strong enough arguement could be made for disallowing it.

  9. Just another reason for me to look into online schools…. I still wouldn’t live in the dorm, anyways, but I don’t think my blood pressure would survive.

  10. J.R. Stoodley,
    I think you’ve illustrated the problem with today’s secular mentality perfectly – the idea that we don’t really know right from wrong, and that if people are going to the wrong thing anyway, that we might as well support them in it. If a college kid feels that his freedom is being restricted because the state won’t provide him with a bedroom to share with a roommate of the opposite sex, he’s got a morally warped view of the world. Maybe our refusal to indulge his warped view won’t change it, but at least it won’t encourage it.
    It’s basically just like refusing to legally recognize homosexual “marriages.” Yes, that refusal makes some people mad. It probably doesn’t do anything to decrease instances of sodomy. But, at least we aren’t encouraging people to pursue that behavior by sanctioning it.
    If there is just a slight twinge in a person’s conscience when they others refuse to support them in behaving inappropriately, maybe that will help them reconsider whether there is something wrong with what there are doing.

  11. Gender-neutral facilities: coming soon to prisons, locker rooms, homeless shelters, and bathrooms near you! The silence you hear is all the women rejoicing.

  12. J.R. Stoodley – Consentual sex amongst roommates may not increase with housing policies that place men and women in the same rooms. It may, but it may not.
    However, it will without a doubt increase the likelihood of sexual assualts taking place in these dorm rooms. Particularly if they have been randomly assigned (i.e. not requested by people that already know each other, which, BTW, would still increase the likelihood of sexual assualts in these rooms).
    Particularly, J.R., when you add the alcohol into the mix.
    This policy is incredibly short-sighted. Rape/Sexual assault is the most under-reported crime in the U.S., with figures upwards of 1 in 6 women sexually assaulted in their lifetimes.
    Considering students confused notions of their own sexuality in the college years, the likelihood of women (and men) being taken advantage of and/or coerced or forced to have sex in the conditions supported by these policies is to such a degree that the administrators who support these policies should be held liable.
    But again, it is the most underreported crime in America. This is a pro-feminist policy that will do nothing but harm women.

  13. My son, soon to be a freshman at a notoriously liberal university (which also happens to have one of the best engineerings colleges in the world) is, this very evening, checking the Christian fraternity there. He was invited, so it’s possible he will be able to board there rather than in a dorm. No girls, no alcohol at parties, all strictly monitored.
    This article made me step up my prayers that he be accepted to room there.
    ‘thann

  14. This idea would be stopped in its tracks if parents refused to pay to send their children to colleges with arrangements such as this.

  15. This policy is incredibly short-sighted. Rape/Sexual assault is the most under-reported crime in the U.S., with figures upwards of 1 in 6 women sexually assaulted in their lifetimes.

    That figure seems extreme. However, many college campuses are embarrassed at how LOW their rape statistics are rather than how high, so a policy that increases rape statistics could actually be a plus from a certain point of view. I am not kidding. (Info there on inflated rape statistics as well.)

  16. Most schools that is already de facto. The high schools, even grade schools basically teach the kids that it isn’t normal to not be having sex.
    I don’t agree with this implied theory that only males were affected by the Fall, though.

  17. Sleeping Beastly kind of stole my thunder. Maybe they should start with coed restrooms and see how forward-thinking, by which I actually mean fun, the whole policy really seems to the student body.
    My money’s on an increase in sexual activity. Never mind Michael Moore with the smokin’ hot roommate; there are enough normal young adults away from home for the first time who will be open to trying new things that it won’t take alcohol and coercion to bring a statistically significant rise in shameful behavior. Not that coercion won’t rise, too.

  18. Considering that these same schools would probably treat you as a criminal if you objected to having a homosexual same-sex roommate, perhaps it is marginally better to have an opposite-sex roommate. In comparison. I -have- heard, and cannot substantiate, that in co-ed dorm halls, there tends not to be dating, that they tend to fall into brother-sister mode. But that is only something I’ve heard. I’m curious if it is true.

  19. In comparison. I -have- heard, and cannot substantiate, that in co-ed dorm halls, there tends not to be dating, that they tend to fall into brother-sister mode. But that is only something I’ve heard. I’m curious if it is true.
    I think that is when men and women share a building (still stupid), not a room. Things can very easily get out of control in either case.

  20. “That figure seems extreme. However, many college campuses are embarrassed at how LOW their rape statistics are…”
    I believe this has to do with the ingrained urban myth (based on nothing in particular) that 1 in 4 women are rape victims at some point.
    This does not jibe with real crime stats, but no matter… the colleges are convinced that there must be a TON more rapes happening on campus than the number that are reported, so they look at a low number as some kind of failure. If ONLY they could get all these young ladies to admit they have been raped, then their numbers would be more in line with this mythical statistic.
    Meanwhile, college rape hotline volunteers are actually disappointed that they rarely get any calls. What an upside-down world.

  21. Obviously, one can never prove anything with regard to unreported crimes, but just anecdotally I have no problem believing that one in six to one in four women are victims of some kind of sexual assault sometime during their lifetimes. I think that a majority of women that I know have had some sexual act forced on them at some point, even if it wasn’t a full blown vaginal rape.

  22. Well I think there shouldn’t even be same sex dorms. Not even with boys and girls on different floors. And I think visitation should be limited to common rooms during specific limited hours. How about that? I hear this is how they do it at St. Thomas Aquinas college in California. A place where they really expect their students to be chaste and wait until they marry.
    I think there would be a revolt if they did this. I don’t think either the girls or the boys would like it. Yes, some people want to cohabit, but to be randomly assigned to share a tiny dorm room with someone of the opposite sex? And presumably a bathroom as well? When could you ever feel really private and unwatched?
    Susan Peterson

  23. I believe this has to do with the ingrained urban myth (based on nothing in particular) that 1 in 4 women are rape victims at some point.
    FWIW, I just read the other day a report from the “Center for missing and exploited children” that 1 out of 4 girls is sexually abused, and that the number for boys is 1 out of 6.

  24. “Catholic colleges certainly should not allow such things of course because of the scandal element, but for a secular institution I’m not sure if a strong enough arguement could be made for disallowing it.”
    Try as some secularists might to prove otherwise, “secular” is not a synonym for “standardless” or “stupid.” Don’t concede the ground to the worst of them, but help the best.

  25. Obviously, one can never prove anything with regard to unreported crimes, but just anecdotally I have no problem believing that one in six to one in four women are victims of some kind of sexual assault sometime during their lifetimes.
    I have to echo that. I’ve known way too many women who have confided that they’ve been victims of sexual assault. It’s not the kind of thing you ask about, so I’m not sure how that number stacks up against the number of women who’ve never been assaulted. But from the tiny slice of information I have, it doesn’t look good.

  26. “just anecdotally I have no problem believing that one in six to one in four women are victims of some kind of sexual assault sometime during their lifetimes”
    Some kind of unwanted sexual activity, sometime during their lifetimes, perhaps. I would like to see the research this common 1-in-4 to 1-in-6 number is based on, though.
    Then there is the problem of girls getting plastered and acquiescing to all kinds of things in their drunken state that they would never normally do, and then filing a sexual assault charge (or making the assertion in private) later.
    This is why I used the term “sexual activity” rather than “assault” in my paragraph above. Not that the behavior isn’t reprehensible, but from the guy’s perspective it would be hard to characterize as assault in the same sense as forcible rape.
    I whole-heartedly concur that way too many girls and women are sexually victimized (well, one is too many), and I do know some myself, so the thing is to work on how to address this in our society, rather than arguing over unproven – and unprovable – statistics.

  27. It’s kind of a shame, I think, that so many Christian families have downplayed or even lost sight of the notion of modesty and dignity for women in regard to men . . and vice versa. This didn’t use to be exclusively a “Muslim” thing. There was a time not too long ago in our own culture, when, even without there being a question of sexual activity, for a proper young woman to spend time alone in a closed room with a male, much less dress or undress in his presence, would have been unthinkable. Unthinkable for either one of them, really. Dr. Laura Schlessinger has often spoken of “modesty” and “dignity” on her radio program – these are religious values that go with respect for women, and really ought to be emphasized more among Christian families. This sad development on our college campuses is, I believe, the logical outcome of Christian parents permitting their daughters to wear provocatively revealing clothing, and to emulate in other ways the stars-behaving-like-whores on television and in the movies. (Because the parents thought it was “cute”, and didn’t want to disappoint their girls.) I’m sure this sad state of affairs can be turned around, but it may take more doing than some of us realize, for it’s really a part of a much bigger picture.

  28. DGS, not the esteemed SDG.
    In my English 101 class, many moons ago, we read Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” and were assigned to write something in the same style. The most absurd thing I could think of was this idiotic idea. It shocked the prof so much that even after other people read their essays she kept coming back to me with questions to force me to defend my essay.
    We have reached a point where the absurd is trying to become the norm. Have mercy.

  29. Jimmy, you ask: “Seriously, is there any part of this idea that doesn’t scream ‘stupid’ to every grownup who hears it?”
    I say yes, there is one brilliant and funny statement/observation here…4th paragraph:
    “…and a way for guys who look like Michael Moore to get a smokin’ hot roommate.
    M.G.’s (Major Guffaws)! Good stuff indeed.

  30. Well, the sexual assault point is a good one. All the more reason, as I said, why students should certainly not be randomly assigned a room with a person of the opposite sex.
    Still, no one has really given a reason why two people of different sexes should not be allowed to have the same room at a secular University. To be clear I’m a conservative Catholic (well, when I’m not loosing myself in other things) and I completely agree that fornication is wrong and it would be scandalous for a Catholic to live with someone of the opposite sex even if they were not actually doing anything. Similarly if a Catholic school were to have such a policy I feel like that could also be a sourse of scandal. People could say “those Catholics let guys and girls live in the same rooms in their colleges.”
    However, in the case of a public institution I’m not sure why people shouldn’t be allowed to make their own decisions and live with who they want to live with. Different senses of morality are not equal, but that does not mean a college has to play the parent for their students. They are old enough to make their own moral choices such as who to live with.

  31. By the way several of my female friends have had rape attempts made on them (none actually raped as far as I know, though one’s first time having sex was pretty close) and one of my best male friends assaulted and possibly raped (it’s unclear what really happened behind closed doors) someone a couple years ago when very drunk. I don’t know the exact numbers but it really is a common thing. Karate is a good idea.

  32. it would be scandalous for a Catholic to live with someone of the opposite sex even if they were not actually doing anything
    Then with whom could a homosexually-oriented person live and not be scandalous?
    “The push for coed roommates on campuses across the country began about five years ago, driven mostly by lesbian, gay and transgender students. They said traditional same-sex housing arrangements assume everyone is heterosexual.”
    “The idea is less Sodom and Gomorrah than Will & Grace, say those behind the movement. They say they aren’t seeking hormone-fueled hookups but places where straight, gay and transgender students can feel at home with whatever gender they choose.”

  33. Man, this is why I’m glad I lived off campus most of the time.
    I had a dorm roommate once. Nice guy, but we were just incompatible. It felt awkward and unnatural and I got a single room (what they called a “broom closet”) the next semester.
    I don’t know about the whole idea of assigning roommates in this culture. Can you imagine if they treated adults this way when they went to hotels?… “Good afternoon, Mr. Smith, I hope you enjoy your stay. Here is your key. You will be lodging with a Mr. Gray from Boston. He is checked in and has already called for more bath towels, so you might want to knock before entering…”

  34. What I mean by “in this culture” is a culture obsessed with sex and political correctness and that views human rights mainly in terms of competing groups of victims and oppressed minorities.
    Sounds like the Take Back the Night campus activists need to have a chat with the Co-ed Dorm Room campus activists.
    What are gay people to do? I don’t know, but I’m not sure we ought to set policy to accommodate the concerns of perhaps 3-4% of the population.
    I recommend off campus housing in any case. It was always a batter experience for me.

  35. Still, no one has really given a reason why two people of different sexes should not be allowed to have the same room at a secular University.
    Secular schools can, and do, set their own standards, but parental concerns are one reason I can think of why some secular schools might not want to allow coed rooming.
    If your question is why a secular institution shouldn’t be allowed to have such dorm rules, I don’t have an answer. But if your question is why might a secular university keep gender-segregated dorms, I think it would have a lot to do with easing parents’ minds as they send their not-quite-as-grown-up-as-they-think-they-are kids off to college.

  36. Secular institutions shouldn’t do stuff that’s wrong. Putting young unmarried people of opposite sex together in a dorm room is wrong. Therefore secular institutions shouldn’t put young unmarried people of opposite sex together in a dorm room.

  37. I had thought of the homosexual situation too. I for one would not feel comfortable with a homosexual roomate. My freshman year I had a lesbian on my floor but she had requested and got a single. I think even if there is some abuse of the system making sure you do not randomly assign a heterosexual and a homosexual person of the same sex (or two homosexual people of the same sex) together is a good idea.
    Parents today frequently (certainly not always) get overprotective of their kids. They want to control their kids lives even when they are no longer minors and are miles away at college. And all too often they have a sense that the University and the RAs for that matter have a responsibility to do what they say. It’s not healthy for the parents or the students and it’s not fair to the RAs in some cases. Sure, there should be alcohol and drug policicies in accordance with the law (even if the law is condescendingly protectionist too), but beyond that I think freshmen need to be able to live their lives. Are they as grown up as they generally think? Of course not. But they are old enough to be responsible for their own actions, and if they make mistakes that is how they will in fact grow up.

  38. Elijah,
    I agree that a secular insitution should not “put” two people of the opposite sex together, but is it necessary that they forbid it if the two students request it?

  39. J.R. Stoodley wrote: “Parents . . . get overprotective of their kids. They want to control their kids’ lives even when they are no longer minors and are miles away at college . . . (they feel that) the University and the RAs have a responsibility to do what they say. It’s not healthy for the parents or the students and it’s not fair to the RAs in some cases. Sure, there should be alcohol and drug policicies in accordance with the law (even if the law is condescendingly protectionist too), but beyond that I think freshmen need to be able to live their lives. Are they as grown up as they generally think? Of course not. But they are old enough to be responsible for their own actions, and if they make mistakes that is how they will in fact grow up.
    J.R. is right! Time was when parents supposed that college, parents, church, and society, were all “on the same page” about the best way for young people to grow into adult responsbilities. Well, that day is long gone. Nowadays the popular culture is tugging at youngsters to go in one direction, while parents and pastors digging in their heels, holding the line for dear life. Today it’s all about the freedom to grow up and make one’s own mistakes.
    I support this, and I know you do, too. We all realize that our colleges and universities are desperate for money, and in today’s economy, many students are struggling and need on-campus jobs. The bottom line is: whatever will raise cash on campus and provide jobs gets the green light. Let’s not fret about “standards”, or “sending messages”, or overprotective limitations – J.R.’s comments have shown that all that should go right out the window. ROTC Centers on campus – that’s a green light. Big bucks come in with the Defense Dept. Next. Why not open betting casinos and billiard halls – open to the general public – right on campus? These would provide lots of jobs for students and revenue for the school. “Academic atmosphere”? Forget all that brick and ivy bookworm crap. This is real life. These kids have to grow up soon. The sooner these students learn how to punch out a $20 lottery ticket, and serve it up with sling a pitcher of brew, the sooner they’ll grow up! Bring in lots of business, and rake in plenty of revenue. A firing range out in the ballfield would be great. Guns and target practice are popular with the locals, and plenty in the way of admissions fees could be charged. All kinds of revenue could be generated in this way, and many worthwhile jobs for needy students.
    Thanks, J.R. for showing us that parents and colleges should just “get over themselves” when it comes to students making their own decisions. But the question of mixed-sex room assignments was just the opening volley!

  40. Looks to me like an option for those who request it, not a mandate for all students. I too would wonder why it would be necessary to forbid it? When the Church speaks against cohabitation, it’s my understanding that it’s in reference to people who are sexually active with one another. But this option is available to people who may be revolted at such an idea.

  41. Right, Helen. And students who prefer not to participate in the proposed on-campus R.O.T.C. programs, or visit the pool hall, gambling casino, and firing range, need not do so, either.
    To each his own, I say.
    Absolutely right!

  42. Dear J. R.,
    When you become a father, you will understand.
    I recommend two points of thought: 1) (I say this too my shame) re-watch the movie, When Harry met Sally, and 2) re-read the prophetic words of Humanae Vitae.
    Universities are not meant to be bastions of liberality, but places of reason and common sense. What could possibly be reasonable about the proposal for a co-ed roommate? Just because two college kids, who know nothing about life, decide that living together is right for them is no reason to grant their request. Let them try to defend the proposition to their parents (better, their grandparents). Let them try to make a “reasonable” argument. Perhaps, when they hear the sigh from more experienced people, they might begin to understand that they know nothing.
    This suggestion by the college is not only sad, it is inhuman.
    Sorry for being so severe. I have seen too much in life.
    The Chicken (who today is being served with a side-order of crab).

  43. Let’s all take a couple steps back for a second. I think we all can agree on a few starting principles here. Any objections to the following:
    -Teenagers, including college freshmen and sophomors, are generally neither as grown up as they think they are or as they could be were our culture different.
    -Parents have a responsibility to raise their children in a way that gives them the maximal opportunity to be good, moral, successful people.
    -Society should be structured in a way condusive to holiness.
    -Fornication and drunkeness, among many other things, are both wrong and dangerous
    -The sudden experience of freedom upon leaving home frequently leads to irresponsible behavior in teenagers when they go to college.
    -The tendency to desire freedom and form their own identity at this general time of life is natural and good but sometimes can be taken to irrational extremes, throwing out the baby with the bath water so to speak.
    I’ve found lately I like illustrating my points with my favorate songs, so if anyone feels listening I think this is reflective of many student’s attiudes toward their parent’s authority and demanding expectations by the time they leave home: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXYiU_JCYtU
    I know that’s real old but oh well, so am I by college standards.
    Anyway, the question becomes what measures can and should be taken to make a child’s transition to adulthood as smooth as possible. From what I’ve seen in my friends, it’s often the most sheltered, Catholic-schools, strict parents, etc. kids that go crazy the most early in college. They were repressed at a time they find repression the hardest to bear, and sheltered from the wider world, and then were suddenly let free. It’s a recipe for disaster.
    What then is the answer? To let High Schoolers drink and have sex and everything as much as they want while even younger so by the time they get to college none of the opportunities will be new? Of course not.
    But I think the best way to get someone to act like an adult is to treat them like an adult, in essence. Yes, while they are still a minor and under your roof you are in charge and they have a responsibility to obey you. Make that clear. Set basic rules. But make it clear that it is out of love and your responsibility to them as a parent with charge of them by God to keep them safe, and meanwhile it is their responsibility to be a peaceful member of the family. Emphasize that you are not restricting their freedom, but imposing consiquences for certain actions because that is your job. It’s important to get across the sense that they are not being repressed or sheltered or even guided, you are just giving them such help as you can and fulfilling your duties to them as a parent. And meanwhile treat them in an everyday social sense as essentally and equal, and certainly have them drink an occasional beer or glass of wine with the family every once in a while to mature their attutudes towards alcohol.
    Then when it is time for them to leave home realize that the situation has radically changed, and make sure the kid understands that too. You won’t bail them out of all their mistakes, just like petty punishments like groundings are now a thing of the past. You will always love them and perhaps if they really need a place to stay your doors will be open to them, but now they are an adult with adult responsibilities, and adult consiquences for their actions. Let that sense of personal responsibility sink in.
    College orientation should emphasize the same thing, and warn students about how things like alcohol cause lots of students to fail or get kicked out of school very quickly.
    Then once that’s all been communicated really live it. Don’t try to control their lives. Of all times in their life, this is a time when parenting would be most counterproductive. By now they have the background from you and the Church to know right from wrong, but they need to fully form their own identities and sense of independence. Their actions are theirs to determine and the consiquences are theirs to reap. Some of them will still make mistakes, but this is the time of their lives when they have to be able to make mistakes or not. Attempts at control will both retard their development and foster a sense of resentment toward authority.
    I don’t know if I’m being entirely clear here, and of course I’m not a parent so I don’t fully understand the parental mindset, but this is how it seems to this 22 year old anyway.

  44. Dear J.R.,
    Sorry for the brusk tone in my last post. I did not mean to pick on you. I realize that you are on the front lines in this matter, so we are rooting for you.
    In the best of all possible worlds, young people would have the requisite training to make responsible decisions. Some young people do have that level of maturity. Many, do not.
    In the same way that good parents lay the groundwork for letting their children make hard decisions by letting them make less “consequential” decisions, such as weather or not to get and take care of a dog, since the temptation to have sex and the consequences can have life-long impacts, could not the college administrators find ways to allow the students other, less long-term, rights, such as, say, the right to establish student-run transportation services (a bad example, but you get the idea) as a way of allowing them near-adult freedoms?
    Studies of the development of the adolescent brain in modern societies shows that the brain really doesn’t fully “set” until about 22-23 years old. It would be an interesting observational experiment for a college student to compare the emotional maturity of typical freahmen and sophomores to juniors and seniors. The differences are not just because juniors and seniors are closer to facing the real world, but because they are neurophysiologically different than than the freshmen and sophomores.
    If the administration were to bow under the pressure to let co-ed rooms happen, they should require that the people be at least 22-23 years old (i.e., old enough to bear societal responsibility). No freshman or sophomores should be able to have that privilege, because all of the others would complain and the vast majority simply are not ready to handle that responsibility, at least in my limited observation stretching over thirty years in higher education as a student/faculty member.
    My biggest complain is not with the students. It is with the administrators, who are supposed to be mature individuals. Unfortunately, it seems, many are extreme libertines who want license over common sense.
    Again, sorry for sounding so harsh earlier. I’ve seen too many lives destroyed or changed in this area because of a moments passion. Most people who have been through college could probably say the same thing.
    For what its worth, I think Tim J.’s suggestion to live off campus is a step in the right direction. I got much more work done living off-campus than living in a dorm. Plus, one can actually cook dinner for a date. Now that’s the test of a true friendship (given the skills of most male college students in this area).
    The Chicken

  45. Well, I’ll agree to same-sex (homosexual people with singles), randomly assigned rooms for freshmen at least.
    Living off campus is better in general for older students, but I don’t know, I can see both pluses and minuses to keeping freshmen and maybe sophomores all together in the dorms. And anyway freshman year most students will not know anyone to live with off campus anyway.

  46. I’m not sure why parents think that how their kids will deal with new “adult” situations is a product of how strictly the kids were watched and controlled. Having had experience being a kid myself, I think that’s framing things the wrong way, and might lead to the problems you’re trying to prevent, either way you choose to go, depending on your kid’s disposition.
    Rather than looking at it as how strictly to control kids, maybe try to look at it as a matter of instilling the correct attitude towards bad stuff–a healthy fear of this and that. I wasn’t watched like a hawk, or lectured with a sense that my parents mistrusted me or worried about me, about sex, drugs, alcohol, etc. I didn’t need to be. I was very afraid of STDs, pregnancy, the scary things that drugs can do to a person (the parents took us to see David Toma). I was raised thinking that certain kinds of things, only “bad people” or very screwed up people did, and that they suffered troublesome, dangerous, and/or humiliating consequences for them. I wouldn’t even have considered so much as trying pot, and my parents didn’t forbid or warn me or lecture me–it was understood that “we just don’t do that”. Having learned the right attitude removed temptations, which I think might be at the source of the matter, and not parental control.
    I’ll admit there was less visible compassion in my family for “people who did bad things” than you tend to see today. Sure, there was compassion and the notion that everyone had dignity. But in my memory, I wasn’t sat down to be lectured on how prostitutes and crack addicts “were just people too”, and made to “try to understand where they were coming from”, thereby watering down what were the more important messages for someone my age, to internalize. I tend to believe that it was okay to focus on compassion a little later, when my mind was more mature and discerning. As a kid, the focus was on developing that healthy fear of, or aversion to the idea of, certain things.
    My parents didn’t wait till we were teenagers to comment or talk about “bad stuff”. I learned the right attitude early on.

  47. JRS- I think you’re missing the point. If an 18-year-old guy wants to move into an apartment with his 18-year-old girlfriend, get a job, and pay his own bills, no one can stop him, not even his own parents.
    If, however, his parents are paying his way through school (and, likely, paying his dorm room rent) then he is not really being treated like an adult. Adults earn and pay their own way, and their freedom grows directly out of the responsibilities they accept.
    As long as a student’s parents are footing the bill, they have a right to decide how that money is spent. More than that, they have a responsibility to do so! If they throw money at a student who uses that money to buy drugs and cut class and get laid, then they are doing their child a grave disservice, and would be helping him more by cutting him off.
    For this reason, I see nothing wrong with colleges (even secular colleges) offering non-coed dorms, and for parents taking advantage of this. Non-coed dorms don’t restrict a student’s freedom; students are still free to live off-campus just like everyone else in society. Non-coed dorms give parents the option of giving their kids a place to live where they will be supervised, and they generally pay more (relative to comparable housing off-campus) for this option.

  48. Just a few points:
    1. There were a few spelling errors in my last post (weather instead of whether, etc.),
    2. Under no circumstances do I support the idea that any students of different sexes should be allowed to room together, unless they are married (the homosexual case is included, as well, although it is different, in a sense). To allow this undercuts society’s foundations, which, in one sense, stems from the extension of a covenential relationship, such as in marriage. Age is not the issue. I would not support even letting forty-year olds of the opposite sex room together. This would be sin and sin can lead to scandal. I seemed to make an exception for age (22-23 years and older), above, but I did not mean to do so.
    3. It is the duty of Christians to resist this improper legislation. If the administration has lost its moral bearings, then fraternal correction is called for. Perhaps this is the beginning of a period where Christians will have to finally stand up and say, enough is enough and really begin another age of martyrs (although more in a legal sense). Just because the Supreme Court may, ultimately, permit this, gives no one any license. The Supreme Court, as in the case of Row v. Wade, has proven that, sometimes, they do not have their priorities straight.
    The Chicken

  49. Just a few points:
    1. There were a few spelling errors in my last post (weather instead of whether, etc.),
    2. Under no circumstances do I support the idea that any students of different sexes should be allowed to room together, unless they are married (the homosexual case is included, as well, although it is different, in a sense). To allow this undercuts society’s foundations, which, in one sense, stems from the extension of a covenential relationship, such as in marriage. Age is not the issue. I would not support even letting forty-year olds of the opposite sex room together. This would be sin and sin can lead to scandal. I seemed to make an exception for age (22-23 years and older), above, but I did not mean to do so.
    3. It is the duty of Christians to resist this improper legislation. If the administration has lost its moral bearings, then fraternal correction is called for. Perhaps this is the beginning of a period where Christians will have to finally stand up and say, enough is enough and really begin another age of martyrs (although more in a legal sense). Just because the Supreme Court may, ultimately, permit this, gives no one any license. The Supreme Court, as in the case of Row v. Wade, has proven that, sometimes, they do not have their priorities straight.
    The Chicken

  50. Sleeping Beastly,
    It’s the parent’s perogative whether to pay for the student’s room and board or not. The student should have the right to make his or her own choices, including choices that might result in their parents choosing to stop supporting them.
    It is perfectly legitimate for a parent to refuse to pay for their child to live with a person of the opposite sex, and thus give the student the option of either paying for it on their own somehow or changing their living plans. That’s quite different than setting up actual rules on the organizational level of who may room with who.

Comments are closed.