Posted on 07/18/2011 8:36:48 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Sometimes the most radical ideas are the most sensible (and vice versa). That’s certainly the case with the recent decision by John Garvey, president of the Catholic University of America (CUA) in Washington, D.C., to phase out co-ed dorms and return to single-sex residence halls.
Garvey presented a fairly practical case for the move: As at many an American college, there is a drinking problem at Catholic University. Garvey cites Christopher Kaczor, a professor of philosophy at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, who puts it this way:
Co-ed living creates a “party” expectation that students fulfill. College males want to get females to drink more, to facilitate hookups. College men themselves drink more as “liquid courage” to approach women and as part of the process of encouraging female drinking (for instance, with drinking games). In order to demonstrate “equality” with male students and so as not to seem prudish, college females drink more than they otherwise would. Single-sex residences reduce this binge-drinking dynamic.
Single-sex dorms also, as you might expect, offer a corrective to the current campus hookup culture. A 2009 study in The Journal of American College Health found that students in co-ed dorms have more sex and more partners — and are “more than twice as likely as students in gender-specific housing to indicate that they had had 3 or more sexual partners in the last year.”
And, if you want to get even more practical, W. Bradford Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, points out: “Needless to say, binge drinking and casual sex tend to distract students from their studies. For instance, young women who engage in such activities are more likely to be depressed, and tend to do poorly when they get distracted by drinking and sex.”
Absolutely sensible. And so, of course, given our litigious age, CUA may be taken to court for its decision. An unneighborly professor at nearby George Washington University says he plans to sue, complaining that the return to single-sex dorms would constitute sexual discrimination.
“I think there are probably plenty of well-meaning folks out there who want the goods — less hooking up, less drinking — but believe heartily that any goods like that ought to be entirely an act of will, completely volitional amid the options to choose otherwise,” says Mark Regnerus, co-author of the book Premarital Sex in America.
He is “not really surprised” by the lawsuit threat. “To some, anything like this is a signal of a ‘return’ of sorts to a past that its antagonists find stifling, constraining, etc. . . . They fail to realize that people are very much social creatures in their decision-making, and that putting up some reasonable barriers like this one can be helpful toward reaching the goals they claim to want.”
In New York City’s SoHo, young people have been gathering Tuesday nights this summer to discuss Pope John Paul II’s Love and Responsibility, using an almost workbook-like text. They are twentysomethings looking for an alternative to the culture of utilitarianism around them. They want neither to be used nor to use others — for sex or anything else. They see the inherent dignity of the human person and want to treat that, in themselves and others, with respect. They want to challenge themselves and expect more. The group meets in the courtyard of a closed Catholic school. But Old St. Patrick’s has become a new school for a culture wanting more.
And it’s not quite a turning back of the clock. The sessions, which break off into discussion groups, meet people where they are. Good-looking, talented, well-dressed, many of them probably cultural creators, this crowd tends to fit in well in the trendy neighborhood. But they want to pursue their success within the norms of eternity; they want their every action to have a greater purpose and love. They don’t just talk about love and feelings, and they don’t want to get drunk for courage. They want to know how to truly have integrity in a well-integrated life — successes and failures and all.
As for the lawsuit, in a memo prepared for the Alliance Defense Fund, attorney Dale Schowengerdt writes: “Catholic colleges should not feel compelled to maintain co-ed dorms simply because a lone attorney in D.C. is threatening to sue. No court has ever held that a college must maintain co-ed dorms. And based on well-established law, it is very unlikely that a court would do so.”
“The sexual revolution has lowered the price of sex,” notes Jennifer Roback Morse, author of Love and Economics, “so that it is harder for women to refuse, even good, well-brought-up young women who want to refuse. CUA’s move will create a less toxic environment for women, making it easier for them to resist the pressure for sexual activity. This in turn can create space for young adults to cultivate other, non-sexual aspects of relationship and friendship.” This is the topic of Regnerus’s book, and it’s what is driving the real experts, those young people in SoHo, to a pope who died when many of them were still teenagers.
It’s not “No sex, please, we’re Catholic.” And it’s certainly not an exercise in discrimination. It’s about human dignity. Repair work our culture needs. The Carrie Bradshaws of this generation don’t think their Manolos are made for walking from hookup to hookup. But they also need a little encouragement, the gals and guys alike. John Garvey answers that generational cry for help with good ol’ common sense. And it happens to be an appropriate conversation starter for a lesson in sexual integrity. CUA certainly has the name to be a leader there. And now it has made a practical move in that direction that’s worth a prayer and freedom from a nonsense lawsuit.
— Kathryn Jean Lopez is editor-at-large of National Review Online
I heard there was some college that was going to allow male and female roommates. This is not just a co-ed dorm, but mixed sex roommates. What could go wrong? (sarcasm)
I am shocked that somehow some legal eagle would think that a single sex dormitory constitutes sex discrimination. That line of thinking shows how far we have fallen in certain ways. Yet this dude will get his day in court, trying to force them to continue co-ed dorms. Unbelievable that such a lawsuit could see the light of day.
She's in a residence hall..schoold doesn't have freshman dorms..and it's co-ed...she says she's OK with it...we get there, start moving her in..meaning I'm lugging all the bags UP 3 flights of stairs...I go to look for a bathroom..hall bathrooms..no private ones in each room..and to my surprise..the bathrooms are co-ed...I couldn't believe it...urinal, stalls, and showers....
I can't see myself standing at a urinal in case a young lady walks in, so I opt for the stall..there are all sorts of posters, flyers, on the walls..attached to the lock slide is a flyer enclosed in plastic..it reads..
DATE RAPE is a Woman's Concern
As I release it, the other side shows, and it says
DATE RAPE is a Man's Concern...
gawd..
Then, I go back to her room, her RA has stopped by to say welcome, and gives her a showbook containing condoms, feminine foam, a sex guide, and a whistle to carry with you and blow if you're attacked..
b
Good article! But way too late. The horse is already out of the gate. I hope more colleges will do the same, return to single sex dorms.
God had a reason for us to refuse sex until AFTER marriage. A young good looking woman should refuse all sexual contact until marriage. Same goes for the man! Casual sex lowers expectations.
Gorve City College has been single sex since its founding in 1876 and it has NOT changed at all.
Great to know that! Thanks! I will keep it in mind for my younger kin...
People used to get married shortly after reaching puberty. They weren't "saving themselves" for very long.
Not disagreeing. Just saying...
The four and the fifth joke just tells itself.
Not disagreeing with you, either! :-)
It is my opinion that binge drinking on college campuses is a result of our ridiculously old 21 drinking age as well as the legal inability for parents to teach responsible drinking habits at home under their watchful eyes.
Instead of learning to drink at 18 as a high school senior still living at home, young people today have to wait until they leave home and go to college --possibly the worst place to develop drinking habits.
That tends to happen with much shorter lifespans and no age of consent laws.
Hey, with the left redefining of dating, marriage, commitment, etc. a college same sex dorm could be a hotbed of hooking up worthy of the latest NEA lesson plan.
So...This Mr. Regnerus thinks the students should do less drinking and "hooking uo," but they should do it on their own. This guy's as sharp as a ball bearing. And he has a book out on the subject, too. (Eyes rolling to the next county)
I have mixed feelings about this. I agree with you that it is better to learn in the home than in the dorm, but I also think that alcohol is a dangerous drug, just like heroin or cocaine. People are better off never drinking.
Of course I think alcohol should be legal. Actually, in theory I think all drugs should probably be legal. However I would encourage people to avoid all these things, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, heroin. None of it does you any good.
Speaking as someone who went to a party school and stayed in a co-ed building, I agree 100%. Then again, I know plenty of kids who stayed in the single sex dorms and were getting just as loaded. Short of zoning bars and liquor stores out of a 20 mile radius of campus, I don't know how you are going to avoid a "party" expectation. Single sex dorms, while probably marginally helpful, are not the answer.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
I lived in a co-ed dorm for my three years at James Madison University in Virginia (1984-87), a state school, and ours was actually one of the more sedate dorms, more sedate than most of the single-sex dorms. We were split by floor and section (the three floors on one side were male/female/male, and reversed on the other side), with a total hall population of about 140 split 50/50 male/female. Visitors were kicked out at midnight weekdays, 2 am weekends, but dorm residents were free to travel to opposite-sex floors as we pleased.
We partied, yeah. But, we partied no harder than most of the single-sex dorms. We had less property damage over a school year than most of the all-male dorms. And interestingly, there were very few intra-dorm hookups. There’s something to be said for seeing that “hottie” from the third floor wearing no makeup, a ratty bathrobe, curlers, and bunny slippers while she’s doing her laundry at 10:00 at night. It’s kind of an anti-aphrodesiac. The university was so pleased at the reduction in property damage and the relatively sedate behavior in the co-ed dorms, of which we were the first, that they took several of the all-male dorms and made them co-ed to try and reduce the amount of damage done.
Would I feel comfortable with my daughter in a co-ed dorm? I’d have to see the building layout and know who she was in there with, and know the college’s stand on things. I was in school 25 years ago when things had not gotten as far down the “free sex” road as they are now, so I probably would prefer her to live in an all-female dorm. But just because a dorm is co-ed doesn’t mean that it’s going to be all Caligula, all the time.
(Our dorm’s biggest problem wasn’t the sexes being together, in fact. It was more that we had a large proportion of male marching band flag and rifle corps people living on one floor, and a lot of them were gay. I heard the RA for that floor use the phrase “stacked like cordwood” regarding looking into one of their rooms one Saturday morning.)
}:-)4
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.