On one of my first outings as a campus tour guide back in the fall of 2006, I pointed across Michigan Ave to where Conaty, Spalding, and Spellman freshman residence halls stood in all their terrible glory. Instead of saying, “Ladies and gentlemen, take a look at that dump,” I uttered a few rehearsed lines: “These are the residence halls that make up South Campus. A lot of students feel a strong sense of community here, as each building only houses freshmen. They are co-ed by floor.”
For the most part, prospective students and their parents in my tour groups ignored the mundane things I was required to say. The students didn’t care about community; they wanted me to hint at an atmosphere of drinking and sex. And while I never explicitly did this, one tour found me opening an entrance gate to Centennial Village that had been “decorated” with a condom. Another tour found me walking past a group of students in the central grassy area of CV drinking out of red solo cups and blasting music. It was 3 o’clock in the afternoon on a Tuesday. Hint well taken.
For their part, parents weren’t so much interested in how you can use your student ID to get into your residence hall, take out a book at the library, AND swipe into the Pryz for a meal; they were looking for ways to be offended. And by uttering the words “co-ed by floor,” offense had been taken. A prudent mother in the group, who was – if my memory serves me correctly – wearing a denim dress, didn’t understand how we could have co-ed dorms at The Catholic University of America. Had we no shame? My answer caught her off guard: that’s how it had been for a while, and it was working well for everyone. Housing Services found it easier to fill rooms, Residence Life could have both male and female RAs in the same building, and the students were reminded for once that we weren’t attending college in a fucking monastery.
On June 13, Catholic’s newly elected president John Garvey penned an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal entitled “Why We’re Going Back to Single-Sex Dorms.” In it, he announces that at the beginning of the 2011-2012 academic year, all freshmen residence halls will be single-sex. Sophomore halls will follow the year after that. In 2013, all students at CUA will be asked to submit proof of virginity prior to enrolling in the school.
So why does Garvey make this change now? Why were co-ed dorms allowed under the previous 12-year presidency of Fr. David O’Connell, the man who is now bishop of the Diocese of Trenton, NJ? Although Garvey cites that the reason behind his decision was to curb the cultures of “binge drinking” and “hooking up” that are now rampant on college campuses, I’d venture to say that the controversy around this decision was planned. Publicity is publicity.
In Garvey’s words, the problem: “The two most serious ethical challenge college students face are bing drinking and the culture of hooking up.” The solution: “Here is one simple step college can take to reduce both binge drinking and hooking up: Go back to single-sex residences.” Imma be real honest here and say that for me, single-sex dorms sound like even more reason to binge drink and hook up. But that’s just me…and the 30% of gay students at CUA who somehow remain invisible to the administration.
Because it was solicited, here is my advice to President Garvey – as a recent CUA graduate, as someone who worked as an RA in co-ed dorms for two years, and as a person who is quite realistic and sensible, a-thank-you-very-much. My advice is that going back to single-sex…let’s call them same-sex…residence halls isn’t going to solve this problem.
Let it be known that college students are going to go out of their way to drink and have sex no matter where they live. Physical separation of men and women (all 50 yards of it) isn’t going to prevent them from drankin’ and saxin’. Regardless of their residence hall, students are going to venture outside of it – driven by raging hormones or a case of the Thirsty Thursdays – to have what many would consider normal, healthy college experiences. This is not to say that overindulgence in either is good, but it is to say that both can be good in moderation.
Garvey speaks about the interrelation of intellect and virtue. Intellect informs virtue, and vice versa. Then doesn’t it make sense that a college should expect that the 18-year-old freshmen, who it has selected for admission, should be informed enough about the pressures and risks of binge drinking and unsafe sex to make the decision to do either for themselves? And if the college determines that these freshmen aren’t adequately informed, shouldn’t it simply provide better educational resources for them once they get to campus?
Is it the institution’s responsibility to make decisions for its students? Of course not. A virtuous person acts out of free will, and chooses what is right and good freely. Garvey cites Aristotle, so allow me to dust off ye olde minor in philosophy and take a crack at it, too. Aristotle defines virtue as the mean between excess and deficiency, implying that virtue requires a choice. Without free will, without the ability to choose right vs. wrong, there can be no virtue. Catholic cannot impose virtue upon its students: it must allow these students to make their own, informed decisions. Garvey should not overstep his bounds.
I value my four years at CUA. Having spent three of those years in co-ed residence halls, and one year in a co-ed off-campus apartment, I can say that I would not have met my closest friends had it not been for where I lived. Call it luck, or fate, but many of my best friends from college are girls that lived in my freshman building. I also met my boyfriend in this building, two doors down from me. Talk about the greatest freshman residence hall ever. I’m sorry that future CUA students will not be able to have my same experience.
For the most part, prospective students and their parents in my tour groups ignored the mundane things I was required to say. The students didn’t care about community; they wanted me to hint at an atmosphere of drinking and sex. And while I never explicitly did this, one tour found me opening an entrance gate to Centennial Village that had been “decorated” with a condom. Another tour found me walking past a group of students in the central grassy area of CV drinking out of red solo cups and blasting music. It was 3 o’clock in the afternoon on a Tuesday. Hint well taken.
For their part, parents weren’t so much interested in how you can use your student ID to get into your residence hall, take out a book at the library, AND swipe into the Pryz for a meal; they were looking for ways to be offended. And by uttering the words “co-ed by floor,” offense had been taken. A prudent mother in the group, who was – if my memory serves me correctly – wearing a denim dress, didn’t understand how we could have co-ed dorms at The Catholic University of America. Had we no shame? My answer caught her off guard: that’s how it had been for a while, and it was working well for everyone. Housing Services found it easier to fill rooms, Residence Life could have both male and female RAs in the same building, and the students were reminded for once that we weren’t attending college in a fucking monastery.
On June 13, Catholic’s newly elected president John Garvey penned an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal entitled “Why We’re Going Back to Single-Sex Dorms.” In it, he announces that at the beginning of the 2011-2012 academic year, all freshmen residence halls will be single-sex. Sophomore halls will follow the year after that. In 2013, all students at CUA will be asked to submit proof of virginity prior to enrolling in the school.
So why does Garvey make this change now? Why were co-ed dorms allowed under the previous 12-year presidency of Fr. David O’Connell, the man who is now bishop of the Diocese of Trenton, NJ? Although Garvey cites that the reason behind his decision was to curb the cultures of “binge drinking” and “hooking up” that are now rampant on college campuses, I’d venture to say that the controversy around this decision was planned. Publicity is publicity.
In Garvey’s words, the problem: “The two most serious ethical challenge college students face are bing drinking and the culture of hooking up.” The solution: “Here is one simple step college can take to reduce both binge drinking and hooking up: Go back to single-sex residences.” Imma be real honest here and say that for me, single-sex dorms sound like even more reason to binge drink and hook up. But that’s just me…and the 30% of gay students at CUA who somehow remain invisible to the administration.
Because it was solicited, here is my advice to President Garvey – as a recent CUA graduate, as someone who worked as an RA in co-ed dorms for two years, and as a person who is quite realistic and sensible, a-thank-you-very-much. My advice is that going back to single-sex…let’s call them same-sex…residence halls isn’t going to solve this problem.
Let it be known that college students are going to go out of their way to drink and have sex no matter where they live. Physical separation of men and women (all 50 yards of it) isn’t going to prevent them from drankin’ and saxin’. Regardless of their residence hall, students are going to venture outside of it – driven by raging hormones or a case of the Thirsty Thursdays – to have what many would consider normal, healthy college experiences. This is not to say that overindulgence in either is good, but it is to say that both can be good in moderation.
Garvey speaks about the interrelation of intellect and virtue. Intellect informs virtue, and vice versa. Then doesn’t it make sense that a college should expect that the 18-year-old freshmen, who it has selected for admission, should be informed enough about the pressures and risks of binge drinking and unsafe sex to make the decision to do either for themselves? And if the college determines that these freshmen aren’t adequately informed, shouldn’t it simply provide better educational resources for them once they get to campus?
Is it the institution’s responsibility to make decisions for its students? Of course not. A virtuous person acts out of free will, and chooses what is right and good freely. Garvey cites Aristotle, so allow me to dust off ye olde minor in philosophy and take a crack at it, too. Aristotle defines virtue as the mean between excess and deficiency, implying that virtue requires a choice. Without free will, without the ability to choose right vs. wrong, there can be no virtue. Catholic cannot impose virtue upon its students: it must allow these students to make their own, informed decisions. Garvey should not overstep his bounds.
I value my four years at CUA. Having spent three of those years in co-ed residence halls, and one year in a co-ed off-campus apartment, I can say that I would not have met my closest friends had it not been for where I lived. Call it luck, or fate, but many of my best friends from college are girls that lived in my freshman building. I also met my boyfriend in this building, two doors down from me. Talk about the greatest freshman residence hall ever. I’m sorry that future CUA students will not be able to have my same experience.




























