The first-year housing lottery is now over and the 1600 members of the class of 1995 have each been assigned to one of the houses. However, the process of rooming assignments is far from over. Every freshman, sophomore, and junior must now make decisions as to which of their blockmates or friends they want to live with next year. For many students, the stress has therefore only just begun.

Harvard students are usually granted a great degree of deference with regard to how they choose to live their private lives. Harvard allows students to consume alcohol behind closed doors even if they are underage; Harvard allows students to sleep with any person of either sex so long as they do not disturb their roommates. However, Harvard students are no longer treated as adults in their selection of rooming arrangements.

Some students will have the opportunity to live with a sexual and/or romantic partner. Other students will not only be denied that opportunity, but will not be allowed to live with many of their friends either. Why? Because of Harvard College's inconsistent and inappropriate policies with regard to co-educational rooming groups. These policies should be changed so as to provide students throughout the college with equivalent opportunities to form consentual co-ed rooming groups.

The current Harvard College policy pertaining to co-ed rooming groups consists entirely of one phrase in the Handbook for Students under the heading "Rooming Assignments": "Coed rooming groups are not allowed in any College housing" (p. 103). However, the college at no point clearly defines what a rooming group is. Many houses have therefore interpreted this directive differently, both with regard to how it should be applied to their own unique arrangement of suites and in determining the definition of a "rooming group." Yet it is patently unfair that students should be denied the opportunity to live in a co-edu rooming group solely because of the arrangement of suites in their house or the policy of their house masters. Diversity among the houses is a powerful and unique attribute of Harvard; however, the manner in which they treat their students should be consistent.

Co-ed rooming groups are likely to be controversial and a potential source of stress and other difficulties. However, to deny students this option entirely suggests that Harvard students do not possess the maturity to live with people who are different from themselves. Harvard prides itself in the diversity of its student body, but would yet deny its students the valuable and enlightening experience of living with a member of the other half of the human race.

Four houses presently permit rooming arrangements that are co-ed in everything but name:

• Adams House permits the single suite that composes Senior House to be occupied by a co-ed rooming group on account of there being two bathrooms in the suite. No other co-ed rooming groups are permitted in a single suite, but fire doors may be opened between certain suites to create a larger rooming group with two bathrooms that is co-ed.
• Cabot House does not permit co-ed rooming groups but where hallway bathrooms exist they may be co-ed by the unanimous agreement of students on the floor.
• Leverett House permits the "U"s in the Leverett Towers to be co-ed, although individual bedroom units within them may not be. The two bathrooms in the "U"s may be co-ed or single-sex depending on the preference of the residents.
• Mather House permits co-ed rooming groups to exist within tower suites which have individually lockable bedroom units but only one bathroom. Low-rise suites, which also have lockable bedrooms but share a bathroom with another suite may not be co-ed, but they may share the bathroom with a rooming group of the opposite sex.

Personal tastes should obviously not be used to dictate others' lifestyles, nor should simple logistical problems justify the categorical prohibition of co-ed rooming groups. While the college might wish to prevent the formation of rooming groups that would be fraught with tension, or could potentially be marred by the decay of a relationship, this is not a justification for a complete ban on co-ed rooming groups. Indeed., co-ed rooming groups should be subject to certain restrictions. Members of co-ed rooming groups should have to agree to such a living arrangement without any form of pressure or coercion. Individuals who do not wish to live in such an environment would never be forced to. But at this point the college's involvement must end.

Only individual students can judge their own needs for privacy. In a recent survey by the Civil Liberties Union of Harvard, 91% of undergraduates expressed support for the establishment of co-ed rooming groups at Harvard. However, only 36% described themselves as definitely or probably likely to form a co-ed rooming group if the opportunity existed. Harvard students recognize the risks implicit in such a rooming group; only 4% of the students surveyed would form a co-ed rooming group solely to live with a girlfriend or boyfriend.

Furtermore, a double standard exists because the college does not object to gay or lesbian couples sharing living accommodations. It is hypocritical for the college to demand a higher standard of behavior from persons of one sexual orientation than of another. Harvard's current policies towards co-ed rooming groups embody not only a belief that men and women are incapable of living together without sexual complications but also that only heterosexual relationships are important; the university does not object and in some cases actually encourages homosexual students to live together.

The college should do no more than to warn all students of the risks inherent in any roommate relationship. Any roommate relationship may decay; tension may arise whether a suite is occupied by a homosexual or heterosexual couple, by non-romantically linked persons of either sex and sexual orientation, or any combination of the above. In addition, the college should no more act to prevent the development of a romantic relationship between residents of a suite than it should of students living in separate suites.

Previous attempts to instigate change in Harvard's rooming policy have met with the response that alumni and parents would react hostilely to co-ed rooming groups. The image of Harvard College will indubitably be affected if the college allows students to form co-ed rooming groups. However, the opinions of Harvard graduates should not be imposed upon students at the cost of only those persons presently at Harvard.

Furthermore, such a change would be for the better for Harvard in the long run, if not the short run; I am dubious that many students would be discouraged from attending Harvard on account of the existence of co-ed rooming groups. The effects of this policy change would be no more disorienting - and also no less important - than those brought about by the integration of the house system by sex in the 1970's.

The concerns of parents are somewhat more difficult to dismiss; they do have a direct interest in their children's welfare. However, college students are adults, and any dispute over co-ed rooming should remain a private one. Many other colleges permit co-ed rooming arrangements of some sort without great difficulty. Among these colleges are Brandeis University, New York University, Tufts University, and the University of Pennsylvania.

The initial and continuing logistics of instituting co-ed rooming groups at Harvard may be difficult. Furthermore, some students may find their housing options limited by the existence of such groups, such as transfer students, floaters, and students from other rooming groups that need to be rearranged mid-year. However, an equal or greater number may find their options considerably enhanced. Many students become floaters or are assigned to less than ideal rooming groups because they do not even have the option of rooming with friends of the opposite sex. The institution of co-ed rooming groups might actually ease rather than complicate housing assignments.

The current status of co-ed rooming groups at Harvard College simply cannot be maintained. The college policy is entirely inconsistent; students are being denied an opportunity they both desire and deserve. The administration should act to allow co-ed rooming groups to enter the spring housing lotteries. Although this may present some logistical difficulties for college, they are certainly not insurmountable. Twenty-two years after women first became residents of Harvard's houses, the Harvard community has without doubt evolved to the point where it is mature enough to handle co-ed rooming groups.

Jol Silversmith is the co-director of the Civil Liberties Union of Harvard (CLUH). Some parts of this article are adapted from the Civil Liberties Union off Harvard Report on Co-Educational Rooming at Harvard College. However, the opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of CLUH.

Postscript: Advocacy by CLUH led the college to adopt a new policy, permiting co-ed rooming groups, in 1993.