As the UC system considers asking about sexual orientation, HeatherN offers words of caution.
The new policy within the University of California system, as described in the Los Angeles Times this week, of asking whether prospective students identify as LGBT, raises a few concerns for me. Mostly I see it as a good thing, with a few potential problems. On the plus side, if the data collected is actually put to use, it could help universities become more diverse and welcoming to LGBT students. A campus that is aware of how many LGBT students are attending can better determine what sorts of services are needed for LGBT students.
On the potentially negative side is the issue of privacy. Parents can access a child’s application, and this means that a closeted student might not necessarily answer truthfully. In fact, from personal experience, I know this is an entirely likely scenario. When I applied to university, the student aid form asked me whether I identified as LGBT, and I lied and said I didn’t, precisely because I wasn’t out to my parents yet and they could access the form. If enough students do this, it could skew the numbers enough that the survey becomes somewhat meaningless anyway. Ideally, the survey section of an application would be completely confidential, and even parents wouldn’t be able to access it.
It’s also important to mention that, though this article doesn’t expressly state it, the survey sections of university applications are separate from the information used to determine whether someone is accepted or not. In other words, when an application is being reviewed, this information won’t be part of it. There is no danger of some kind of LGBT affirmative action or of an anti-LGBT administrator deciding to only accept straight students. This information is used when giving out scholarships, but scholarships have always had an element of unfairness about them. There are scholarships for people who are left-handed, after all; people make scholarships for all sorts of random groups of people.
If we could make it completely confidential and separate from admissions requirements, I’d suggest we ask even more questions about university applicants. Universities that want to ensure they have adequate services and programs for their students should want to know as much about their prospective students as possible. We can’t turn applications into a facebook page full of likes and dislikes, obviously, but I think it would highly useful to ask about their social identities. Do students identify as BDSM? Are they working, middle, or upper class? What religion do they ascribe to? What political party are they affiliated with?
I suppose in the end I think this is a step in the right direction; it just needs to be tweaked a bit before actually being put in place.
(As someone who works at a college, I keep thinking of things to say, practical issues that would be bureaucratic nightmares. Sorry for the multiple postings.) Imagine if you’re a female student who showed up the first day of dorm life to find that Residence Life had paired you with a male roommate. When you went to the office to ask about what you thought must be mistake, they told you not to worry, because he’s gay, so there shouldn’t be any problem. I’m guessing in most cases that would not go over very well, for all kinds of reasons.… Read more »
“Imagine if you’re a female student who showed up the first day of dorm life to find that Residence Life had paired you with a male roommate.”
Well theoretically one of the things you’d look into when applying to universities is their housing arrangements. I wasn’t particularly bothered one way or the other, but when I went to my undergrad uni I still researched what my housing options were.
Good point about the importance of researching what your options are as a student. I would guess that it’s in any school’s best interest to offer as many options as possible, within certain parameters.
I think there’s some gray area on the subject of who the college can make you room with and who they can’t. There are some preferences that the residence policies have to take into account and some that they do not. At one end of the spectrum, I think most people would say that colleges have to honor a student’s wish to have a roommate of the same sex. Technically that’s sexual discrimination, but in practice it seems a pretty acceptable version to most people. At the other end of the spectrum, requiring that the college give you a roommate… Read more »
This raises a practical, bureaucratic, statistical question for me. If this data is used to come to any conclusions about the demographics of the student body, what should we do with the people who refuse to answer the question? (Presumably students would have the choice of not answering the question.) We should not assume that some who refuses to answer “Yes” or “No” is hetero, nor assume the person is LGBT. At some schools, “no answer” is one of the biggest categories for students on the question of race/ethnicity, so I can imagine it might be the same on forms… Read more »
Good questions: From what I read in the article it looks like yes, it will be optional. Also, they haven’t quite figured out what the question will be, but it could be something along the lines of “Do you identify as lgbt?” So although that acronym doesn’t techincally include asexual, pansexual, with initials, it does include those groups implicitly. Though, as I said, I think it’d be better to have more questions rather than less.
Also, it doesn’t look like this’ll be used for admissions. From what I can tell it’s mostly to do with demographic FYI and scholarships.
Heather–You bring up a great point in the second paragraph. The ability of parents to access the application will definitely skew the data. At 18 (and even NOW), there were a MILLION things that I would answer differently simply knowing that my parents even had a chance of seeing it. Some kids just don’t have that open book relationship with their parents, and I think many come out to their friends far before they do to their parents.
Thanks yeah…I’ve looked up other articles about it, and even other people who are for this survey are worried about the privacy. I’m hoping they take that into consideration and it ends up becoming completely confidential.
From a student housing perspective it is as relevant as gender (sex), allowing students to select what gender and orientation they prefer to room with.
My undergraduate university had a really interesting system in place with regards to housing – they offered all sorts of special interesting housing. One of them was for LGBT students, but it went well beyond that. They had a green house (if you’re environmentally conscious), an international house, substance-free housing, and then a whole bunch of theme-based housing – like for people who are really interested in pop culture, the fashion industry, baseball, etc. The majority of students just live in normal apartment-style dorms…but it was kinda cool to have the option of living in a house (well apartment) that… Read more »
As long as people have the option to choose not to live with a LBG person or a person of the opposite sex if they prefer not to.
Here is where I disagree with you, Eric. I shouldn’t be able to say I only want to live with white people, or straight people, or cis-gendered people, etc. Now you might think it’s hypocritical, but let me try to explain to you why it isn’t: privilege. I know you hate that word, but there exists white privilege, and straight privilege, etc. The reason LGBT students might want to have separate housing is to avoid discrimination and bullying. The reason a straight student would want to have separate housing is a form of discrimination.
Heather, you’re not disagreeing with me on race, since I never mentioned it as a choice that should be given.
” I know you hate that word, but there exists white privilege, and straight privilege, etc.”
Only when it doesn’t apply.
However, based on your argument, “The reason a female student would want to have separate housing (from males) is a form of discrimination.” So, you would need to argue against that women not having the choice to not room with men, if you are going to be consistent.
Actually, as I’ve stated elsewhere…the issues surrounding gender inequalities are different than other inequalities. In the case of gender, both men and women are fighting for equality in different parts of society. Not to mention, women and men already are separated from each other in university housing (though again my university provided the option of mixed-gender housing, which I think is a good idea as an option). The reason males and females often want separate housing is more to do with the way our society views nudity and a relic from our puritan history. But again, the important point is… Read more »
Oh and the reason I mentioned race is because I view it as being much the same thing in this particular example. There’s no difference between a white person wanting to live with only white people, as there is to a straight person wanting to live with only straight people. Both are examples of a privileged group wanting to continue to marginalize an unprivileged group.
Heather, just as you are working hard to rationalize why segregating based on gender is uniquely acceptable, other rationale can be used to for homo and heterosexual; it’s just that one is acceptable to you personally and the other is not. You can’t make an argument and stand behind it, but then explain why that same argument doesn’t apply to others.
For instance, the argument is made that seperating male and female students is based on the sexual element of them bunking together. For that reason, many female students are uncomfortable being seen changing and showering by male students. The same may be true of hetero vs. homosexuals. If the latter is an invalid concern, so is the former. If one is discrimination, so is the other.
Eric, I’m not talking about that particular aspect of the argument. Yeah, the whole “they’ll hit on me” aspect of it is bunk all around. But that’s not the only reason why men and women sometimes want to live in separate dorms. I’ve got no problems living with men, and I have no concern that they’ll hit on me…yet I’m still more comfortable being nearly-nude around women rather than men. It’s got nothing to do with sex, and everything to do with the way our society views modesty. Some men want to live only with other men because they’d prefer… Read more »
I never mentioned anything about “the whole “they’ll hit on me” argument. Nor does “society’s views of modesty matter. It’s about individual’s rights to not be forced to change/shower, etc. in an setting that they find uncomfortable, such as with a member of the opposite sex or a homosexual.
“Some men want to live only with other men because they’d prefer to live with people who are like them in that way…same goes for women.”
Same goes for heterosexuals. Don’t force any of them to do otherwise – or force all of them to do otherwise.
Alrighty, for some reason you’re unable or unwilling to recognize that the difference in the man/woman dynamic versus lgb/straight dynamic does matter when it comes to this discussion. We’re going to start talking in circles, so I’m just going to end the discussion here unless you’ve got something new to say.
“Alrighty, for some reason you’re unable or unwilling to recognize that the difference in the man/woman dynamic versus lgb/straight dynamic does matter when it comes to this discussion.” Whatever differences there are don’t matter to the person forced to share a room. The fact remains that many heterosexuals (just as is true of many women and some men were they forced to share a room with a member of the opposite sex) are not comfortable being in an intimate setting such as sharing housing with a homosexual. Whatever other differences there may or may not be are do not change… Read more »
Oh for goodness sake. I’m not rationalizing…it’s true that the social dynamic between men and women is different than the social dynamic between lgbt people and straight people. It means that men wanting to live with men, women wanting to live with women, and men and women who live with whatever gender are none of them perpetuating an oppressed/oppressor dynamic. That’s just the way it is.
“That’s just the way it is.”
In your opinion.
Not wanting to be seen naked/changing/showering, etc. by someone who is attracted to your sex is not oppression.
@HeatherN
So you’re saying that discriminating against straight people is ok ?
If LGBT students get a choice so should straight students.
@HeatherN
“Separating” people should only be left up to the individual.
People associate with others who they like that shared their interest, opinions & beliefs and also race.
I’ve never liked the idea of sharing a room with a complete strange,
Diversity shouldn’t be forced on people.
About not forcing diversity on people–I remember getting randomly paired in a room with a girl. The moment I found out that she was a very active Christian, my heart sank. I thought to myself, “Oh dear, this is going to be a loooong semester.” I was even angry. Yet, she turned out to be a great girl and I learned a lot from her. She was very accepting of me, despite of my beliefs and actions. I even went to a bunch of Christian activities with her and took a lot out of it (even Bible study turned out… Read more »
I am curious about how this could be used in universities that have large numbers of students living on-campus in dorms or some other accommodations. Coming off of the recent Darun Ravi/Tyler Clementi situation, would it be useful to allow students entering an on-campus housing lottery to select “LGBT roommates only” as part of the application? That is not to say that many students of any orientation could and don’t live together fine. But it may allow new, younger students who are coming into this phase of their life a more comfortable environment to live in. On the other hand,… Read more »