The decision for Dartmouth to become coeducational was a good one for the College. On that point, students, administrators and faculty would agree almost unanimously. Some alumni, particularly those who attended an all-male Dartmouth, disagree, but the overwhelming majority of the Dartmouth community has accepted the new vision of Dartmouth as an improvement over the old order. Indeed, it was this sentiment that led to the decree in the Student Life Initiative a few years ago that "The [residential] system should be substantially coeducational and provide opportunities for greater interaction among all Dartmouth students." Given this general consensus, should the College continue its prohibition on mixed-sex River apartments? Logically, it should not.
In 1999, the Trustees announced five principles that were designed to change the nature of social and residential life at the College. One of the most controversial principles was the aforementioned one because, as applied to the predominantly single-sex Greek system, it could be interpreted as a justification for the system's dissolution. While President Wright initially pledged to end the Greek system as we know it, recent changes have not been nearly as cataclysmic as was first feared. In retrospect, it was obvious that applying this principle to the Greek system would cause conflict. Those students who choose to live in single-sex Greek houses do so because they prefer that environment to dorm life, in which men and women typically live adjacent to each other. An attempt to force these students to accept a residential life that they had chosen to reject was bound to cause tension. The current incarnation of this principle has eschewed conflict by acknowledging the continuation of single-sex Greek houses and has focused instead upon dorms.
Current Office of Residential Life policy prohibits mixed-sex River apartments. Given the clearly articulated trustee principles of greater coeducation and increased interactions among all Dartmouth students, this may seem puzzling. If students are clamoring for the opportunity to live with a more diverse group of people by including the opposite sex, is that not consistent with the Trustees' principles? To allow such an arrangement would not be to deny single-sex options to those who currently prefer them, but merely to act in furtherance of the Trustees' fiat.
The current policy does have a rational basis. The policy is predicated on the belief that men and women should not share use of the same bathroom. It is a very reasonable belief and I would not support forcing men and women to share a restroom, but I think the dynamic is quite different among friends who have chosen to live together.
First, a description of the River apartments is in order. Each River apartment contains a living room, kitchen, bathroom and a number of singles. They are highly coveted for their spaciousness and the independence that their kitchens offer. There is only one bathroom per apartment, and men and women would be forced to share it. There would be no sharing of bedrooms, as all are singles with locking doors, but rather a sharing of common spaces similar to what already occurs and is supported by ORL policy in other living arrangements on campus. In Topliff, for instance, a large number of singles are close together and residents share a kitchen. The difference between Topliff and the River apartments is mainly one of magnitude (the former is much larger than the latter) but not one of substantial principle regarding the benefits of coeducation. While it is true that bathrooms are not shared in Topliff, that is not the case elsewhere on campus.
There already exists de facto sharing of restrooms on campus. Whether it is women visiting fraternities or men visiting sororities, the practice is widespread. Groups of men and women often share off-campus apartments during sophomore summer and senior year. If those students can handle the responsibilities of sharing a bathroom, then what makes their on-campus counterparts any less responsible?
Coed Greek houses are a positive influence on campus with respect to fostering diversity. Indeed, when the Student Life Initiative first came out, a proposal was floated whereby the post-SLI Greek system would be 8 fraternities, 8 sororities and 8 co-ed houses, rather than the current ratio of 13:8:3. How this change would be effected was never made clear and the plan was dropped. Nonetheless, the proposal evidenced the high regard in which coed houses were held by the Trustees, with respect to their contribution to gender relations. I mention this not because I disagree with the premise that coeds add to campus diversity, but rather to indicate the selective nature of the College's commitment to co-education. With the River apartments there is no such commitment, even though the situations are quite similar. There is a small difference between the two groups in that the coeds, Panarchy and Amarna, in theory, have the potential for bathrooms segregated by sex, while River apartments do not. But if those organizations have managed to make sharing work in practice, then could not a group of friends handle a similar responsibility in the River apartments?
Coeducational living in the River apartments would not be without risks. But those who occupy River apartments are usually seniors, who tend to be more responsible than 'shmen. If the benefits of mixed-sex housing outweigh the risks in coed Greek houses, then why is the cost/benefit analysis any different for the River apartments? As people choose to live in the River apartments with their close friends it seems less likely, not more likely, that there would be problems, relative to the larger environments of coed houses and dorms in general.
Changing the policy to allow coed living in River apartments would provide greater choice for students and maintain greater consistency with the Trustees' principles. Students have shown that they can handle the responsibility of sharing a bathroom in practice and they should be afforded the opportunity to do so in College sponsored housing. It's time the River apartments were desegregated to allow residents to live with as diverse a cross-section of campus as possible.