The University of North Carolina in November 2012 adopted a gender-neutral on-campus housing policy that would allow students of different sexes to share suites and apartments, but not rooms. UNC set aside 32 gender-neutral living spaces in preexisting housing for a pilot program set to launch this fall.
Advocates of the gender-neutral housing alternative say the measure will improve the safety and comfort levels of the school’s gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students. Students must opt into the program by filling out an application explaining why they are interested.
But UNC’s mixed-gender housing option, which the school’s board of trustees approved unanimously, may not come to fruition. In early April a bipartisan trio of North Carolina state senators introduced a bill that would prohibit UNC students of different sexes from sharing apartments or suites unless they are married or siblings.
The proposed legislation marks a misstep in two respects. The bill threatens to detract from the living experiences of the school’s most vulnerable students. It is also a meddlesome intrusion into university governance.
UNC’s mixed-gender option will, at first, affect 32 students, a tiny fraction of the school’s total enrollment. A bill that aims squarely to prevent these students from living in gender-neutral accommodations reads as an instance of the kind of bullying the school’s housing policy sought to prevent.
One of the bill’s sponsors, Republican Sen. David Curtis, said in a news release that UNC had not become an academic leader by wasting “time and tax dollars on frivolous social experiments.” In this case, however, the bill’s sponsors are wasting more time and tax dollars than North Carolina’s flagship. It is unlikely that the school is shouldering much of a financial burden by placing both men and women into pre-existing residential areas.
In addition, the measure is far from a “social experiment.” Mixed-gender housing arrangements occur frequently in off-campus locations. Nor is the gender-neutral policy “frivolous.” For the policy’s advocates, and UNC’s students, LGBT or not, who might prefer mixed-gender accommodations, the measure is of great importance. Curtis’ “social experiment” comment betrays a telling traditionalism that suggests his bill arises more out of anti-gay bias — or, at the very least, a profound lack of sensitivity to the needs of LGBT students — than an investment in UNC’s housing operations.
No student should be hindered from achieving academic success because of his or her housing situation. Students have to be 18 to opt into UNC’s pilot program. So why not give these adults a margin of freedom in choosing the housing arrangements with which they feel most comfortable?
The move to ban co-ed apartments, however, invites criticism not just for its content but also for its form. The bill is a clear instance of micromanagement on the part of the state.
UNC owes its existence to taxpayer dollars. Because of the school’s public obligations, the General Assembly can and should weigh in on some aspects of UNC’s governance, such as tuition increases. But offering mixed-gender housing to a small number of students is not the kind of large-scale university governance decision that impinges directly on North Carolina citizens. UNC’s housing policy is not in the State Senate’s proper scope. There are undoubtedly more important things happening in North Carolina than 32 UNC students opting to live in co-ed suites.
For state senators to attempt to override a unanimous decision by UNC’s board of trustees is an unduly aggressive move. The State Senate should kill the bill — to protect the needs of UNC’s LGBT students, yes, but also to protect the autonomy of North Carolina’s flagship, which should be able to decide such matters for itself.
Read More
LETTER: Medical students stand in support of transgender youth
By Rachel Rezabek , Russell Hawes , Ishaan Rischie , Elianna Dunster , Kaile Maske , Zain Ahmad and Zoe Ziff | 4 hours agoAs future physicians, we cannot remain silent, especially since U.Va. Health is one of the most comprehensive gender health centers in the country.
HUYNH: The Supreme Court must support civil rights litigation in Virginia and beyond
By Viet Huynh | 9 hours agoThe Supreme Court must prioritize protecting the litigating power of the people against potentially tyrannical laws by their government.
EDITORIAL: U.Va. Health lets fear trump its mission to do no harm
By Editorial Board | YesterdayIt is high time to resist these authoritative and dangerous actions before there are no federal avenues left for resistance.
