IN PRESSURING school administrators at Tufts University to allow coed dormitory rooms for gay students, senior students Carl Sciortino Jr. has the correct motives in mind, but his struggle to alter a preexisting policy merely represents a quick fix that eludes the true source of the obstacle at hand.
Abuse and harassment of gay and lesbian students is an issue at campuses across the nation that deserves to be addressed by college administrators. At any university, psychological abuse targeted at minorities has absolutely no place and should not be tolerated in any fashion. In paying fees and granting trust to a selected institution, students expect the opportunity to engage in the school's facilities to the fullest extent. When issues such as harassment and abuse intercede, however, the psyche of the student is invariably violated and the college experience suffers inequitably.
Sciortino purports that his campaign is aimed at making the college campus more hospitable to gay students, and, on the surface, his request for coed dorm rooms does so unequivocally. Gay students fearful of homophobia simply can apply to live in coed dorms with comfortable partners, avoiding the issues that arise in same-sex rooms. However, in removing gays from these standard same-sex rooms, Sciortino is fostering the seclusion and separation of gays rather than their widespread acceptance.
In effect, Sciortino is taking gays off the front line rather than having them fight the genuine battle. For widespread heterosexual acceptance of alternative lifestyles to ever transpire, gays must make themselves a visible, tangible faction of society. Straight people, specifically those bigoted toward homosexuals, must walk the same streets and share the same spaces as gays. Tolerance will only be attained with this type of collective attitude in place. Acceptance occurs after proper acclimation, while further segregation only amplifies hostility.
Tufts administrators, in rejecting Sciortino's proposal, also recognize the complexity, and necessary balance, of school policy. With the upheaval of a longstanding procedure, reverberations must be expected in the entire scholastic population, not just the single faction being assisted. Once the floodgates are open to coeducational housing, even on the smallest scale, other factions will insist upon having the option as well. Furthermore, in addition to the possibility that heterosexual couples theoretically could abuse the system, the creation of a gay housing block would only create a more obvious target for hostility.
Responsibility to make the collegiate experience of students a positive one, however, does lie in the hands of administrators. School officials must be unquestionably receptive to any student seared by the effects of discrimination and abuse in the dormitory environment. Nonetheless, longstanding school policy need not be altered. Alternatives such as single rooms and off-campus housing should be made readily available to any student uncomfortable with his current living conditions. Other suggestions include a more comprehensive room compatibility survey issued prior to housing assignment. Although still skirting the principal problem, these alternatives at least grant relief to abused students without compromising the legislative fabric of the university.
If nothing else, Sciortino understands the value of a grand gesture. Sciortino, a senior, has no exclusive interest in the outcome of the school's ruling, though he continues to lobby valiantly, a trait admirable in itself.
Despite admitting from the beginning there was little chance Tufts would adopt the policy, Sciortino, by exposing the issue of gay harassment in dorms to a national audience, has contributed to the acclimation of gays on a larger scale. Even if the proposal itself was unrealistic in scope and administratively unfeasible, the attention it brought to the issue nationwide was invaluable and Sciortino likely is fully aware of this fact.
Any attempt at the short-term segregation of gays, be it through coed
housing, single rooms or off-campus living, represents a flimsy Band-Aid placed over a gaping wound. The vital issue here is the extensive acceptance of gays, not only in universities, but also in society as a whole. Sciortino, by calling attention to the issue on campuses, has begun the educational process and now school administrators need to pick up the ball. Colleges, as well as high schools and elementary schools, can best serve the entire population by offering seminars and programs to encourage sensitivity, instilling the message of acceptance in America's youth at the ground level. Education has the potential to bring forth a lasting recognition that no quick fix ever could offer.
(Jason Leff is a student at Boston University.)
Read More
ONIBUDO AND SAWAYA: Police, not students, were agents of chaos
By Naima Sawaya and Nathan Onibudo | YesterdaySaturday, the state, not students nor protesters, brought violence to this campus.
IYER: Sports stadiums should sport more benefit to Virginia residents
By Arjun Iyer | 3 days agoPast stadiums in other states show that Virginia has the potential to succeed at such a construction project, provided that proper measures are undertaken.
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | April 29, 2024The implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
