Co-ed living is currently not an option for students living in the residence halls and apartments, with the exception of Flickinger Court and Creekside Village, which were designed for graduate students and allow married students to rent the apartments. Unlike at UB, undergraduates in institutions like Haverford College in Haverford, Pa., Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn., and Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass., are allowed to live with members of the opposite sex.
Thirty years ago, it was taboo to have a man and a woman live in the same apartment if they were not married, or at least heavily involved in a relationship with each other. Today, it is common to see men and women living together who are simply friends or, sometimes, strangers. The university must catch up to the times and remove these dated, artificial restraints by allowing co-ed apartment mates.
Opponents to co-ed living would argue that if a relationship is the impetus for cohabitation, a later split would damage the living environment. There are a number of flaws in that assertion, however. In the on-campus apartments, rooms are not shared unless it's by choice, so unlike a residence hall conflict that is confined to a single room, an apartment conflict can be dealt with by simply closing doors. In this respect, there is little difference between that scenario and a normal apartment conflict.
Co-ed apartment mates do not have to be dating at all; platonic friendships can exist just as easily between members of different sexes as between members of the same sex. To suggest that the only reason a man and a woman would live in the same apartment is because of an intimate relationship is narrow-minded. If the university wants to increase the number of students who remain on campus, more options must be available to residents. Making the apartments co-ed optional is easy enough to accomplish, and it hurts no one.
Co-ed living in the residence halls, however, is a more different matter. Unlike the apartments where doors can be locked, in the residence halls, roommates must live in the same quarters, making any friction uniquely problematic. Students who opt to live with a member of the opposite sex can't apply for a room change with any more surety than a student who simply doesn't get along with his or her same-sex roommate.
With that said, however, not all students at UB can afford to live in the apartments, and not all students want to move into the University Heights district. UB should examine the level of student interest in co-ed housing, whether through a survey or another measure of interest. If enough students indicate interest, UB could set up a kind of special interest housing where co-ed roommates live together on a floor with people of similar arrangements. A pilot program could be set up in an upper-class residence hall; should co-ed housing options take effect, they should be limited to juniors and seniors, as freshmen could potentially be only 17 and are not yet legally adults.
Co-ed living isn't scandalous; it's a sign of how far our society has come. There is nothing immoral, illegal, or indecent about men and women living together in an environment that affords respect and privacy for both genders. UB should at least test the waters with undergraduates on campus, and leave Puritanism for past generations.
Photo: Meredith Forrest Kulwicki
