Why Not?

MOST would argue that the University ended official distinctions in its treatment of male and female undergraduates with the final integration of Harvard and Radcliffe Colleges in 1976. But although men and women now share classes, libraries and dining halls, there is still one thing they cannot share--a room.

With the recent proposal by the Civil Liberties Union of Harvard (CLUH) to allow undergraduates to live in co-ed rooming groups, the College has the opportunity to break down the last remaining artificial barrier between its men and women.

And that barrier must tumble if Harvard is to live up to its policy of treating all students as equal and free-thinking individuals. Just as the Faculty recently expressed concern about denying Harvard students free speech rights guaranteed to the public, we all should bemoan campus living restrictions that would be considered ridiculous in the real world.

WE'VE come a long way since Radcliffe College was founded in 1879 as a sister institution to then all-male Harvard. Until 1943, Radcliffe students were not allowed to take classes with Harvard men, and as recently as the 1960s a fiery debate divided the campus on whether to allow women to use Lamont library.

The non-merger merger was finalized in 1971, when the colleges approved co-educational living within the houses. Still, small vestiges of the pre-merger era remind us of the absurdity of sex-segregated living: legend has it that hooks on the doors of some North House rooms were used by Radcliffe women to prop open their doors when hosting male guests.

When viewed from a historical perspective, the move to co-ed rooming groups seems the next inevitable step in eliminating its policy of single-sex rooming. But if for no other reasons, Harvard should allow co-ed rooming groups simply because current policy unnecessarily infringes upon students' rights to determine their own lifestyles.

AT the heart of Harvard's ban on co-ed rooming groups is an attitude that the college serves in loco parentus, a concept that works well in high school, but not in college. Harvard does not baby its students in any other way, leaving many to suffer in a sink-or-swim academic atmosphere. For Harvard to suddenly act parental when it comes to living conditions epitomizes hypocrisy. Harvard treats its students as adults when it comes to academic life--why not treat us as adults when it comes to private life?

Currently, nothing prevents men and women from living together unofficially, much to the chagrin of their roommates. Many couples live out of one room anyway, with the non-resident member of the couple using his or her own room only as a mailing address. Others live together over the summer, only to suffer artificial separation during the year. Short of implementing a John Silber-style curfew on coed visitation (and concommitant encouragement of masturbation), Harvard cannot prevent either phenomenon.

Harvard couples--married and non-married--are given housing in Peabody Terrace. They are excluded from house life, what Harvard deems one of the most valuable aspects of college experience. Harvard should not penalize couples who wish to officially cohabitate by isolating them from the mainstream of college life.

And always assuming the "worst," Harvard ignores the possibility that men and women will choose to live together as friends. Often, male and female block-mates live just as close as actual suite-mates, even sharing a bathroom. Why not tear down that proverbial fire-door and let students pick their own roommates--regardless of gender?

Finally, this Harvard housing policy narrow-mindedly assumes that all couples are hetrosexual. Its ban on co-ed rooming allows single sex couples to live together. If Harvard were to carry its ban on non-married couples to its logical fruition, it should allow no rooming groups at all, forcing every student to live in a single.

If Harvard is going to insist that we act like adults, it might as well treat us as adults. We're big boys and girls now, Harvard.