Introduction and Recommendations
This report examines the issue of co-educational rooming groups at Harvard College.
The Civil Liberties Union of Harvard (CLUH) believes that the current college policies regarding such groups are inconsistent
and inappropriate. CLUH therefore asserts that the policies should be changed so as to provide students throughout the college
with equivalent opportunities to form consentual co-educational rooming groups.
As responsible adults, college students should be granted a great degree of deference in their selection of rooming arrangements.
CLUH recognizes that co-educational 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 and denies Harvard students a potentially valuable and enlightening experience.
Therefore, CLUH proposes that the college permit students in the houses to form co-educational rooming groups with the
following conditions:
1) All members of the proposed co-educational rooming group explicitly consent to such an arrangement.
2) Members of the opposite sex have separate bedrooms available to them, or further consent to live together in a single
bedroom.
In addition, beginning in 1993 first-year students should be able not only to block but also to group with persons
of the opposite sex in the Spring housing lottery.
Harvard has a compelling interest in assuring its students the right to freely associate with members of the opposite sex.
While Harvard may not be legally bound to open its private dormitories to co-educational use, there is no valid institutional
concern that can justify denying students such a liberty normally guaranteed in a free society.
The Status Quo
The current Harvard College policy pertaining to co-educational 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 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." It is patently unfair that students should be denied the opportunity to live in a co-educational rooming
group solely because of the arrangement of suites in their house or the policy of their house masters. While CLUH recognizes
that diversity among the houses is a powerful and unique attribute of Harvard, the manner in which they treat their students
should be uniform. Thomas Dingman, Associate Dean for the House System, has told CLUH that Harvard's decentralization not
only allows for the houses to pursue individual policies but for the Housing Office to be unaware of them.
CLUH does not wish to destroy the autonomy of the houses but rather to assert the rights of students. Harvard College has
no co-educational rooming groups for two reasons. First, houses have defined away the problem by inconsistently applying college
rules to allow some co-educational arrangements and not others‹what is considered to be a suite of one rooming group
in one house may be equivalent to what is considered to be several suites and rooming groups in another house. Second, the
college has a ban on co-educational rooming that precludes members of the opposite sex from sharing bedrooms, dressing areas,
and, in some houses, bathrooms and common areas.
The following is a capsule review of the policies of the houses with regard to co-educational rooming groups. The existence
of co-educational or potentially co-educational bathrooms on hallways or between suites is noted, as are fire doors that may
be opened between suites composed of members of the opposite sex. All information is as supplied by the house offices:
Adams House: permits the single suite that composes Senior House to be occupied by a co-educational rooming group
on account of there being two bathrooms in the suite. No other co-educational 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-educational.
The assignment of the bathrooms is then left to the students.
Cabot House: does not permit co-educational rooming groups. However, where hallway bathrooms exist they may be co-educational
by unanimous agreement of students on the floor.
Currier House: does not permit co-educational rooming groups nor the sharing of the bathrooms between suites by
students of the opposite sex.
Dunster House: does not permit co-educational rooming groups.
Eliot House: does not permit co-educational rooming groups.
Kirkland House: does not permit co-educational rooming groups.
Leverett House: permits the "U"s in the Leverett Towers to be co-educational, although individual bedroom units
within them may not be. The two bathrooms in the "U"s may be co-educational or single-sex depending on the preference of the
residents. As in all other houses which permit co-educational rooming groups, the individual bedrooms, not the suite itself,
are the units that compose a rooming group.
Lowell House: does not permit co-educational rooming groups; fire doors between suites may be opened, however.
Mather House: permits co-educational 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-educational, but they may share the bathroom with a rooming group of the opposite sex.
North House: does not permit co-educational rooming groups; where hallway bathrooms exist they may be co-educational.
Quincy House: does not permit co-educational rooming groups.
Winthrop House: does not permit co-educational rooming groups; fire doors between suites may be opened, however.
The brevity of the above summary belies additional inconsistencies between the policies of the houses. Although some Houses
justified their prohibition of co-educational suites on the basis of there being only one bathroom in each suite, others justified
it upon the lack of individually-lockable bedrooms. Virtually every house admitted that where fire doors exist between suites
they may be opened with the house's permission and are frequently opened without it as well. No house attempts to monitor
who actually lives within a suite. These arguments for the lack of co-educational rooming groups are severely lacking in consistency
and are therefore tenuous at best.
Student Opinion
On February 10, 1992, CLUH performed a survey in the Freshman Union during lunch to determine what
students think about co-educational rooming groups. The survey found overwhelming support for establishing co-educational
rooming groups at Harvard College. Although this survey was not a scientific one, there can be no dispute that a substantial
number of students are being unfairly denied an opportunity that they desire and that other students would grant to them.
The survey questions were as follows:
The answers to the questions, with a "Y" representing an affirmative response and a "N" representing a negative response
were as follows:
| Freshman Union |
YYYY |
YYYN |
YYNY |
YYNN |
YNNN |
All responses beginning with N |
All responses beginning with Y |
Total |
| Male, Class of 1995 |
53 32% |
6 4% |
52 31% |
6 4% |
28 17% |
23 14% |
145 86% |
168 |
| Female, Class of 1995 |
16 14% |
5 4% |
58 50% |
2 2% |
18 15% |
18 15% |
99 85% |
117 |
| Total, Class of 1995 |
69 24% |
11 4% |
110 39% |
8 3% |
46 16% |
41 14% |
244 86% |
285 |
| Male, Class of 1994 |
8 36% |
0 0% |
6 27% |
0 0% |
5 23% |
3 14% |
19 86% |
22 |
| Female, Class of 1994 |
2 15% |
1 8% |
3 23% |
0 0% |
4 31% |
3 23% |
10 77% |
13 |
| Total, Class of 1994 |
10 29% |
1 3% |
9 26% |
0 0% |
9 26% |
6 17% |
29 83% |
35 |
| Male, Class of 1993 |
1 8% |
0 0% |
6 50% |
0 0% |
3 25% |
2 17% |
10 83% |
12 |
| Female, Class of 1993 |
0 0% |
0 0% |
2 50% |
0 0% |
1 25% |
1 25% |
3 75% |
4 |
| Total, Class of 1993 |
1 6% |
0 0% |
8 50% |
0 0% |
4 25% |
3 19% |
13 81% |
16 |
| Male, Class of 1992 |
0 0% |
0 0% |
1 33% |
0 0% |
1 33% |
1 33% |
2 67% |
3 |
| Female, Class of 1992 |
0 0% |
0 0% |
1 33% |
0 0% |
1 33% |
1 33% |
2 67% |
3 |
| Total, Class of 1992 |
0 0% |
0 0% |
2 33% |
0 0% |
2 33% |
2 33% |
4 67% |
6 |
Because of the small sample of upperclassman obtained by this survey,
CLUH performed the same survey on a smaller scale on February 19, 1992 during dinner at Lowell and Leverett Houses in order
to confirm that students in the houses hold the same attitudes about co-educational rooming groups as first-year students.
| Lowell House |
YYYY |
YYYN |
YYNY |
YYNN |
YNNN |
All responses beginning with N |
All responses beginning with Y |
Total |
| Male, Class of 1994 |
3 60% |
1 20% |
1 20% |
0 0% |
0 0% |
0 0% |
5 100% |
5 |
| Female, Class of 1994 |
0 0% |
0 0% |
1 100% |
0 0% |
0 0% |
0 0% |
1 100% |
1 |
| Total, Class of 1994 |
3 50% |
1 17% |
2 33% |
0 0% |
0 0% |
0 0% |
6 100% |
6 |
| Male, Class of 1993 |
1 13% |
0 0% |
5 62% |
0 0% |
1 13% |
1 13% |
7 87% |
8 |
| Female, Class of 1993 |
2 22% |
1 11% |
6 67% |
0 0% |
0 0% |
0 0% |
9 100% |
9 |
| Total, Class of 1993 |
3 18% |
1 6% |
11 65% |
0 0% |
1 6% |
1 6% |
16 94% |
17 |
| Male, Class of 1992 |
0 0% |
0 0% |
4 50% |
0 0% |
1 13% |
3 37% |
5 63% |
8 |
| Female, Class of 1992 |
0 0% |
0 0% |
3 60% |
0 0% |
2 40% |
0 0% |
5 100% |
5 |
| Total, Class of 1992 |
0 0% |
0 0% |
7 54% |
0 0% |
3 23% |
3 23% |
10 67% |
13 |
| Total, Lowell House |
6 17% |
2 6% |
20 56% |
0 0% |
4 11% |
4 11% |
32 89% |
36 |
| Leverett House |
YYYY |
YYYN |
YYNY |
YYNN |
YNNN |
All responses beginning with N |
All responses beginning with Y |
Total |
| Male, Class of 1994 |
0 0% |
0 0% |
2 22% |
0 0% |
2 22% |
5 56% |
4 44% |
9 |
| Female, Class of 1994 |
3 100% |
0 0% |
0 0% |
0 0% |
0 0% |
0 0% |
3 100% |
3 |
| Total, Class of 1994 |
3 25% |
0 0% |
2 17% |
0 0% |
2 17% |
5 42% |
7 58% |
12 |
| Male, Class of 1993 |
0 0% |
0 0% |
5 50% |
0 0% |
1 10% |
4 40% |
6 60% |
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Female, Class of 1993 |
0 0% |
0 0% |
1 33% |
0 0% |
1 33% |
1 33% |
2 67% |
3 |
| Total, Class of 1993 |
0 0% |
0 0% |
6 46% |
0 0% |
2 15% |
5 38% |
8 62% |
13 |
| Male, Class of 1992 |
1 8% |
0 0% |
5 42% |
0 0% |
2 17% |
4 33% |
8 67% |
12 |
| Female, Class of 1992 |
0 0% |
0 0% |
2 40% |
0 0% |
1 20% |
2 40% |
3 60% |
5 |
| Total, Class of 1992 |
1 6% |
0 0% |
7 41% |
0 0% |
3 18% |
6 35% |
11 65% |
17 |
| Total, Leverett House |
4 9% |
0 0% |
15 36% |
0 0% |
7 17% |
16 38% |
26 62% |
42 |
| Respondents To All Surveys: |
YYYY |
YYYN |
YYNY |
YYNN |
YNNN |
All responses beginning with N |
All responses beginning with Y |
Total |
| Male |
67 26% |
7 3% |
87 34% |
6 2% |
44 17% |
46 18% |
211 82% |
257 |
| Female |
23 14% |
7 4% |
77 48% |
2 1% |
27 18% |
23 14% |
136 86% |
159 |
| Total |
90 22% |
14 3% |
164 39% |
8 2% |
72 17% |
69 17% |
348 83% |
416 |
Potential sources of error exist in these surveys. The samples may
not be representative of the actual student body since the time, place, manner, and subject matter of the surveys affected
who filled them out. One matter of concern is the unusual opposition to co-educational rooming groups that exists in Leverett
House (although the majority of the house still endorses it). Since Leverett is one of the houses with the most liberal housing
policy with regard to co-educational rooming groups, such a result was unexpected. These results may possibly be due to misinterpretation
of the questions by students‹a potential problem for all of the survey. The response pattern YYNN, for example, does
not make any apparent sense; it is unclear what which persons of the opposite sex such respondents might room. Furthermore,
some respondents answered the first question in the negative, but responded affirmatively to later questions. The small size
of the sample might also explain the results in Leverett House; the results may also indicate that after having lived with
members of the opposite sex, students are less enthusiastic about doing so again.
However, none of the above points disproves the surveys; the percentages are beyond dispute. In almost every category,
85% or more of the students at least supported the existence of co-educational rooming groups. Men and women expressed significant
differences as to whether they would live with a girlfriend or boyfriend; however, about as many men as women are opposed
to the idea of co-educational rooming groups altogether. Furthermore, about 66% of the students surveyed would consider joining
a co-educational rooming group in some form. Only about 3% would seek to form such groups only to live with a girlfriend or
boyfriend, and large percentages of both sexes would specifically not live with a girlfriend and boyfriend.
CLUH performed an additional survey in the Freshman Union on March 9, 1992. This survey was performed primarily to determine
how likely students would be to form co-educational rooming groups if the opportunity to do so existed. The survey questions
were as follows:
For the primary question, the responses were as follows:
| Freshman Union |
Definitely Yes |
Probably Yes |
Maybe |
Probably Not |
Definitely Not |
Total |
| Male, Class of 1995 |
19 14% |
34 25% |
37 28% |
27 20% |
17 13% |
134 |
| Female, Class of 1995 |
20 20% |
18 18% |
24 24% |
21 21% |
17 17% |
100 |
| Total, Class of 1995 |
39 17% |
52 22% |
61 26% |
48 21% |
34 14% |
234 |
| Male, Class of 1994 |
0 0% |
1 11% |
2 22% |
3 33% |
3 33% |
9 |
| Female, Class of 1994 |
0 0% |
1 11% |
3 33% |
3 33% |
2 22% |
9 |
| Total, Class of 1994 |
0 0% |
2 11% |
5 28% |
6 33% |
5 28% |
18 |
| Male, Class of 1993 |
2 18% |
0 0% |
2 18% |
3 27% |
4 36% |
11 |
| Female, Class of 1993 |
1 10% |
4 40% |
2 20% |
2 20% |
1 10% |
10 |
| Total, Class of 1993 |
3 14% |
4 19% |
4 19% |
5 24% |
5 24% |
21 |
| Male, Class of 1992 |
1 17% |
0 0% |
3 50% |
2 33% |
0 0% |
6 |
| Female, Class of 1992 |
0 0% |
0 0% |
1 50% |
0 0% |
1 50% |
2 |
| Total, Class of 1992 |
1 13% |
0 0% |
4 50% |
2 25% |
1 12% |
8 |
| All Respondents |
Definitely Yes |
Probably Yes |
Maybe |
Probably Not |
Definitely Not |
Total |
| Male |
22 14% |
35 22% |
44 27% |
35 22% |
24 15% |
160 |
| Female |
21 17% |
23 19% |
30 25% |
26 21% |
21 17% |
121 |
| Total |
43 15% |
58 21% |
74 26% |
61 22% |
45 16% |
281 |
For the subsidiary questions, to which some respondents did not give
answers, the responses were as follows:
| Freshman Union |
Future Years |
Blocking Groups |
Co-Ed Rooming |
|
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
| Male, Class of 1995 |
104 83% |
21 17% |
80 64% |
45 36% |
115 92% |
10 8% |
| Female, Class of 1995 |
81 82% |
18 18% |
55 56% |
44 44% |
92 93% |
7 7% |
| Total, Class of 1995 |
185 83% |
39 17% |
135 60% |
89 40% |
207 92% |
17 8% |
| Male, Class of 1994 |
5 56% |
4 44% |
N/A |
N/A |
6 67% |
3 33% |
| Female, Class of 1994 |
5 63% |
3 37% |
N/A |
N/A |
8 100% |
0 0% |
| Total, Class of 1994 |
10 59% |
7 41% |
N/A |
N/A |
14 82% |
3 8% |
| Male, Class of 1993 |
7 70% |
3 30% |
N/A |
N/A |
9 90% |
1 10% |
| Female, Class of 1993 |
8 80% |
2 20% |
N/A |
N/A |
9 90% |
9 90% |
| Total, Class of 1993 |
15 75% |
5 25% |
N/A |
N/A |
18 90% |
2 10% |
| Male, Class of 1992 |
5 83% |
1 17% |
N/A |
N/A |
6 100% |
0 0% |
| Female, Class of 1992 |
1 50% |
1 50% |
N/A |
N/A |
1 50% |
1 50% |
| Total, Class of 1992 |
6 75% |
2 25% |
N/A |
N/A |
7 88% |
1 12% |
| All Respondents |
Future Years |
Blocking Groups |
Co-Ed Rooming |
|
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
| Male |
121 81% |
29 19% |
N/A |
N/A |
136 91% |
14 9% |
| Female |
95 80% |
24 20% |
N/A |
N/A |
110 92% |
9 8% |
| Total |
216 80% |
53 20% |
N/A |
N/A |
246 91% |
23 9% |
Many of the potential sources of error that were applicable to
the first survey are also applicable to this survey. An additional source of error for this survey is its extremely small
sample of upperclassmen, although the results still indicate broad support for co-educational rooming groups. The graph of
the responses to the primary question in the survey would be a bell curve; about 36% of the student body described themselves
as likely to form a co-educational rooming group if given the opportunity, while 38% described themselves as unlikely to seek
to do so. Furthermore, about 80% of the student body would consider forming a co-educational rooming groups at some point
in the future, and 90% of the student body endorses a change in Harvard College policy so that students may form such groups.
In addition, about 60% of the first-year students are presently forming co-educational blocking groups for the first-year
housing lottery. There are few differences between the responses to the surveys based upon the sex of the respondents.
Student Concerns, CLUH's Justifications
Based upon the comments that students wrote on the surveys (Appendices 1 and
2), they seem to be most concerned about personal factors or the expected logistical problems that co-educational rooming
groups might encounter. It should be noted that most students who had any distaste for the groups still endorsed others' rights
to form them. However, some potential difficulties should be addressed.
Personal tastes should obviously not dictate others' lifestyles, nor should simple logistical problems justify the categorical
prohibition co-educational 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-educational rooming groups. CLUH recognizes that these are possible consequences of men and women living
together, and therefore advocates co-educational rooming groups only under certain specific circumstances. Members of co-educational
rooming groups would 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. At this point the college's involvement must end.
Several respondents, as well as CLUH's Executive Board, noted that 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. The college should do no more than to warn all students
of the risks inherent in any roommate relationship. This is essentially the current policy with regard to single-sex rooming
groups, and should apply to co-educational groups as well. Any roommate relationship may decay; tension may arise whether
a suite is occupied by a gay or lesbian or heterosexual couple or non-romantically linked persons of either sex. Similarly,
a 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.
The variety of justifications for Harvard's restrictions on co-educational rooming groups indicates that the college has
no clear idea why such groups should be prohibited. Only individual students can judge their own needs for privacy, and students
would not be placed in co-educational rooming groups except by their own choice. The notion that individually-locking bedrooms
are requisite is a overly-paternalistic argument that should have been extinguished at the same time as parietals in the 1970's.
Furthermore, if fire doors between suites with bedrooms that do not lock individually may be opened, and students of the opposite
sex may elsewhere share bathrooms, the current college policy lacks any principled foundations.
Previous attempts to instigate change in Harvard's rooming policy have met with the response that alumni and parents would
react hostilely to co-educational rooming groups. The opinions of Harvard graduates should not be imposed upon students at
the cost of only those persons presently at Harvard. The concerns of some parents are somewhat more difficult to dismiss;
parents do have a direct interest in their children's welfare. However, college students are adults, and any dispute over
co-educational rooming should remain a private one. CLUH doubts that many students would be deterred from attending Harvard
on account of the existence of co-educational rooming groups; many other colleges permit co-educational rooming arrangements
of some sort without great difficulty. Among these colleges are Brandeis University, New York University, Tufts University,
and the University of Pennsylvania.
In addition, in a survey taken in Lowell House in December, 1969 in anticipation of a proposed exchange of students between
single-sex Lowell and the single-sex Radcliffe house East House, many of the same concerns that are now expressed by students
and administrators about co-educational rooming groups were in evidence. CLUH doubts that many students today have difficulty
with living in the same house as students of the opposite sex; students will probably consider the controversy with regard
to co-educational rooming groups in the same light someday. Some of the student responses to the 1969 survey are listed in
Appendix 3.
Conclusion
CLUH concedes that the issue of co-educational rooming groups is not a legal matter. The laws of the
city of Cambridge do not require Harvard to permit co-educational rooming groups, although neither do they prohibit them.
However, for seven years CLUH has sought to prevent unnecessary interference in the lives of students. We support freedom
of association to the same extent that we support any other liberty.
The current status of co-educational rooming groups at Harvard College simply cannot be maintained. The college policy
is entirely inconsistent; furthermore, students are being denied an opportunity they both desire and deserve. CLUH urges the
administration to implement its suggestions prior to the Spring housing lotteries in the houses so that rooming groups for
the next academic year may be co-educational; furthermore, noting that the system of non-ordered choice is due to be re-evaluated
after this year, CLUH urges the college to permit co-educational rooming groups in addition to blocking groups in the first-year
housing lottery beginning in 1993.
CLUH recognizes that the concerns expressed by Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett with regard to co-educational rooming
groups are valid ones. The initial and continuing logistics 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. However, an equal or greater number may find their options considerably enhanced. CLUH welcomes
Dean Jewett's suggestion that such groups are an idea to be experimented with by the college; however, CLUH believes that
they should not be designated as an experiment but as a permanent option for students who make their own decision that they
are mature and secure enough to live in a co-educational environment.
In the Spring of 1970, amidst considerable trepidation and uncertainty, women first became residents of Harvard's houses.
In the intervening twenty-two years, CLUH believes that the Harvard community has evolved to the point where it is mature
enough to handle co-educational rooming groups. Now is the time for freedom of association among consenting students in their
living arrangements. CLUH is willing to offer any assistance the university may desire in promptly resolving this matter.
Recommendations
Harvard College should change its housing policies so as to permit students of the opposite sex
to consentually share bathrooms, bedrooms, common rooms, and other elements of housing. The college should further adopt procedures
to insure that no individuals will be placed into such a group without the consent of all the persons involved. These procedures
should be standardized among all Harvard houses. The college should act now so as to allow upperclass students to form co-educational
rooming groups for the 1992-1993 academic year and the college should permit first-year students to form co-educational groups
for the first-year housing lottery beginning in 1993.
The Executive Board of the Civil Liberties Union of Harvard
Drafted by:
Jol Silversmith '94, Co-Director
Scott Welsch '92, Chair, Co-Educational Rooming Committee
Allan Erbsen
'94, Assistant Director for University Affairs
With:
Edwin U '95, Assistant Director for Student Affairs
Monica Salamon '95, Assistant Director for General Affairs
Joshua
Burstein '93, Co-Director
Allen Hutcheson '95
Appendix 1: Selected Student Responses to Surveys
The following comments were made in response to the initial surveys
CLUH performed in the Freshman Union, Leverett House, and Lowell House. The four-letter code refers to the response pattern
of the individual with regard to the questions on the survey.
"Because I don't want to live with women. If I want to live with a woman, I'll marry one." (Union, a NNNN male, class of
1995)
"Because men and women should live in separate rooms." (Leverett, a NNNN male, class of 1994)
"Because with coed you'll have many more disputes and arguments." (Union, a YNNN male, class of 1994)
"Can't do gross, fun things." (Union, a YNNN male, class of 1995)
"Could create tension that I don't have now." (Leverett, a YNNN male, class of 1994)
"Double standard - gays OK!" (Union, a YYYY female, class of 1995)
"Ever seen 'When Harry Met Sally'?" (Union, a YYYN female, class of 1995)
"I may not want co-ed rooming, but I shouldn't stop others." (Union, a YNNN male, class of 1995)
"I think blocking puts you with your friends - privacy, nudity, etc; are important." (Union, a YNNN female, class of 1994)
"I think it would be hard to maintain the boundaries of platonic friendship in such close quarters." (Lowell, a YYYN female,
class of 1993)
"I think men and women can live together, but I wouldn't like it." (Leverett, a YNNN male, class of 1992)
"I'd hate to be in the room when a relationship ends." (Union, a YYNY male, class of 1995)
"I'm a dyke, so I could theoretically room with a girlfriend anyway. But I think that's asking for trouble. What if we
broke up? But I'd see no problem rooming with male friends." (Lowell, a YYNY female, class of 1992)
"Immoral." (Leverett, a NNNN male, class of 1992)
"It might get strange; it's good enough if they live next door for me at least. I don't know about other people, so it
should be allowed." (Union, a YNNN female, class of 1994)
"It's silly not to have it when there are no restrictions on the opposite sex spending the night." (Union, a YYNY male,
class of 1995)
"Parents would kill me." (Union, a YNNN male, class of 1995)
"Religion. Loss of respect. Not 'Proper' + I'm old fashioned." (Leverett, a NNNN female, class of 1994)
"The biggest danger seems to be romantic relations gone bad." (Leverett, a YYNY female, class of 1992)
"There's no such thing as platonic friends." (Union, a YNNN female, class of 1995)
"Times change, tensions increase/decrease, why the added pressure? Also, as a woman, I wouldn't want other guys (than my
roomie) to feel at home in my space - security and such." (Leverett, a YNNN female, class of 1994)
"Too much tension could be created." (Leverett, a NNNN male, class of 1993)
"We're too young!" (Union, a NNNN female, class of 1995)
"Would depend on setup of room." (Lowell, a YNNN female, class of 1992)
Appendix 2: Additional Student Responses to Surveys
The following comments were made in response to the second survey
CLUH performed in the Freshman Union. The statement of intent and three-letter code refer to the response pattern of the individual
with regard to the questions on the survey.
"Boy, would you have some ugly situations!" (Definitely Not, a NNN male, class of 1995)
"Co-ed rooming would probably not be too popular with parents." (Definitely Not, a N N/A N male, class of 1994)
"I am against it but am not sure I should impose my views." (Definitely Not, a N N/A N male, class of 1994)
"I need this because my best friends are girls." (Definitely Yes, a YYY male, class of 1995)
"I think co-ed housing offers opportunities for people who'd otherwise go off campus." (Probably Yes, a YNY female, class
of 1995)
"If Harvard trusts us to form our own single sex rooming groups it should trust us to form co-ed groups." (Definitely Yes,
a YYY male, class of 1995)
"If homosexuals can live together, why can't males and females who are straight?" (Probably Yes, a YYY male, class of 1995)
"If they're compatible, why not?" (Probably Yes, a Y N/A Y female, class of 1994)
"We're all adults here." (Maybe, a YYY female, class of 1995)
Appendix 3: Selected Student Responses to the December, 1969 Survey on Co-Ed Living in Lowell House
The following
comments were made in response to the survey taken in December, 1969 in Lowell House to determine students' opinions about
a proposed exchange of students with the Radcliffe house East House. Many of these comments might equally have be made in
response to CLUH's 1992 proposal to normalize co-educational rooming groups at Harvard College.
"Experiment will prove nothing."
"Harvard students have had Lamont turned co-ed. Where can they turn to now for peace and quiet if the women also invade
the houses?"
"I am in favor, but would not participate myself."
"I feel so strongly opposed that I will move out if women move in. It is an unnatural relationship."
"I think the co-ed plan would normalize to some extent some pretty strange attitudes I have encountered."
"It is damned unnatural and restricting as hell the way things exist now."
"No way to avoid the other half of the human race."
"Of concern in co-educational living would be the continued presence of 'the emotional [female] point of view.'"
"Silent minorities [that oppose co-educational living] should be ignored."
"Social-reactionary attitudes [are] furthered by the present system."
"The whole tenor of male-female relationships around here would be put on a more normal, healthy basis.'
"Think of having to face breakfast with females (?) in curlers across the table - can't you wait until you are married
to see them this way?"
"This requires enthusiasm from members of the House, which clearly does not exist."
"This ridiculous proposal would totally destroy the House system."
"What might happen to our precious bodily fluids?"
Appendix 4: A Case Study of an Attempt to Form a Co-Educational Rooming Group
In the process of writing this report,
CLUH has talked with individuals that presently live in co-educational rooming groups, desire to form co-educational rooming
groups, and have in the past attempted to form co-educational rooming groups. The following is a summary of the attempt of
one group of students to form a co-educational rooming group in a house which does not permit such groups. CLUH has intentionally
concealed the names of the students and the house, although the students were very willing to discuss their experiences in
the hope that an account of the absurdities they experienced would demonstrate why Harvard's current housing policies must
be changed.
A group of three heterosexual female sophomores and one male homosexual sophomore wanted to form a rooming group in one
of the houses which does not permit co-educational rooming groups. The students not only had the permission but also the active
encouragement of their parents in this endeavor.
The house suggested that if another male could be found to join the group, they could potentially share two suites through
a fire door and thus not need to form an officially co-educational rooming group. However, the students did not have either
the time nor the inclination to find another male student with whom they felt they were compatible.
Three housing options existed for the group. The students could occupy two doubles connected through a fire door or be
crowded into a senior triple, which would have in both cases resulted in a co-educational rooming group. The group could also
have occupied a triple and a single connected through a fire door, but since the group could not and should not have been
granted special priority in the housing lottery, this last option was unavailable to them.
The house expressed concern over how the group's suite was to be utilized if one of the members of the group took a leave
of absence during the second semester of the following year. Although none of the students intended to do so, no difficulties
would have arisen if one of them did. The first set of suites could have been divided into a co-educational double and an
all-female double if one of the female members of the group had left at mid-year; the suite could have become an all-female
quad if the male member of the group had left at mid-year. The senior triple might have remained a triple if any member of
the group left at mid-year with the members of the group losing their priority for senior housing the following year.
In the process of talking with their house masters and tutors, the students also contacted the Committee on House Life.
One of the reasons advanced by the administration for its refusal to permit such groups was the distinct lack of test cases.
However, the group in question was not given any indication that it might be allowed to serve as such a test case.
The master of the house indicated that he would not make an independent decision as to whether to permit a co-educational
rooming group without first consulting L. Fred Jewett, Dean of Harvard College and Chairman of the Committee on House Life.
The students were later informed by the master that Dean Jewett was strongly opposed to the idea of co-educational rooming
groups, and permission for them to form such a group was therefore denied.
The members of the group told CLUH that the master indicated that he had not consulted Dean Jewett about the proposed group
in any formal context but had merely broached the matter to him informally at a meeting of an unrelated organization. The
students also indicated that it was their belief that the master was himself in opposition to co-educational rooming groups.
If so, a token consultation with Dean Jewett allowed him to virtual autonomy in making a decision. Furthermore, when CLUH
consulted Dean Jewett in that same period about co-educational rooming groups, he did not indicate strong opposition to them
although neither was he a proponent.
At this point, the students were left with no other option than to enter the housing lottery separately. The three women
were assigned to a triple and the man was floated into an all-male suite. The man recounts that the house office suggested
that he could intentionally be assigned to a suite composed of other homosexual men. CLUH is intrigued that Harvard condones
and encourages people of one sexual orientation to live together in suites with potential partners, while the college will
not even let persons of opposite sexual orientations who could not possibly be attracted to one another live together.
Furthermore, one of the women in the group took a leave of absence during the spring of her junior year. Although there
were at least two female floaters that needed to be assigned rooms in the house that semester, neither was assigned to the
women's underpopulated suite. This facilitated the ability of the man to unofficially reside in the suite, as he had done
during the previous semester. This year, the man has been assigned to a single but he continues to live and sleep in the suite
of the three women.
This case study demonstrates that Harvard's unfair, unprincipled, and inconsistent housing policies affect real people
and not merely statistics. At the very least, this case indicates a need for the college to standardize housing policy among
the residential houses. CLUH believes that this standardization should take the form of complete acceptance of consentual
co-educational rooming arrangements.
