CUA re-embracing single-sex dormitories

I had the pleasure of meeting CUA’s new president, John Garvey a couple of months ago, and came away impressed with his energy and his obvious interest in his students. That sincere interest is on display in his very “counter-culteral” move to re-establish same-sex dormitories at Catholic University:

“Virtue,” Aristotle concludes, “makes us aim at the right mark, and practical wisdom makes us take the right means.” If he is right, then colleges and universities should concern themselves with virtue as well as intellect.

I want to mention two places where schools might direct that concern, and a slightly old-fashioned remedy that will improve the practice of virtue. The two most serious ethical challenges college students face are binge drinking and the culture of hooking up.

Alcohol-related accidents are the leading cause of death for young adults aged 17-24. Students who engage in binge drinking (about two in five) are 25 times more likely to do things like miss class, fall behind in school work, engage in unplanned sexual activity, and get in trouble with the law. They also cause trouble for other students, who are subjected to physical and sexual assault, suffer property damage and interrupted sleep, and end up babysitting problem drinkers.

Hooking up is getting to be as common as drinking. Sociologist W. Bradford Wilcox, who heads the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, says that in various studies, 40%-64% of college students report doing it.

The effects are not all fun. Rates of depression reach 20% for young women who have had two or more sexual partners in the last year, almost double the rate for women who have had none. Sexually active young men do more poorly than abstainers in their academic work. And as we have always admonished our own children, sex on these terms is destructive of love and marriage.

Here is one simple step colleges can take to reduce both binge drinking and hooking up: Go back to single-sex residences.

I know it’s countercultural. More than 90% of college housing is now co-ed. But Christopher Kaczor at Loyola Marymount points to a surprising number of studies showing that students in co-ed dorms (41.5%) report weekly binge drinking more than twice as often as students in single-sex housing (17.6%). Similarly, students in co-ed housing are more likely (55.7%) than students in single-sex dorms (36.8%) to have had a sexual partner in the last year—and more than twice as likely to have had three or more.

The point about sex is no surprise. The point about drinking is. I would have thought that young women would have a civilizing influence on young men. Yet the causal arrow seems to run the other way. Young women are trying to keep up—and young men are encouraging them (maybe because it facilitates hooking up).

Next year all freshmen at The Catholic University of America will be assigned to single-sex residence halls. The year after, we will extend the change to the sophomore halls. It will take a few years to complete the transformation.

Bravo, President Garvey. A smart and bold move — this is a counter-cultural move, indeed. Profoundly so.

I suspect that deep down, the students will breath a huge sigh of relief. Some down-time from having to be so aware of the other sex. A little bit of mystery and reserve allowed back into our social dynamics.

Great move. I wonder if other college presidents will dare to be so courageous.

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • bill

    You have to be careful with these statistics. The connection between single sex dorms and greater sobriety may be due only to correlation, and have no causative effect at all – in an environment where people are allowed to choose, aren’t those who choose single sex dorms also more likely to be living a more sober life? In my college days, in single sex dorms, there was certainly a lot of alcohol flowing.

    [They're not my statistics; I'm just excerpting -admin]

  • http://jscafenette.com/ Manny

    Whether it reduces alcohol consumption or not, it’s the right thing to do. A man from a university with common sense! How rare is that? ;)

  • Left Coaster

    I just heard last week that Jesuit run Univ of San Francisco wants to allow cohabitation. I have not found a way to verify this yet but, from those who have worked and matriculated on the campus, it sounds consistent with Jesuit, i.e., not Catholic but JESUIT, education.

  • brother jeff

    A gutsy call by the former dean of BC law

  • kenneth

    I don’t buy it. When I went to college (at least the first time when I was dorm age), I lived in a co-ed dorm one year and a single sex one the next. The co-ed one was, all in all, a very civilized place. Quiet most of the time, clean. Yes we drank some there, but it was all pretty low key. There were one or two couples who paired off, but for the most part people dated outside of where they lived because people tended to seem more like brothers and sisters or cousins there after some time.

    The all-guys dorm, on the other hand, was one of the most savage places I’ve seen then or since. We drank like the Soviet army. Guys broke or tore up anything that wasn’t bolted down (and some that were). The place stank of sweat and vomit, and worse. If anything, this environment heightened the predatory aspects of “hooking up.” In a mixed environment, at least you came to see women as human beings (which includes sex appeal0). In the barracks like atmosphere of the all male place, women tended to be seen as “marks.”

    The finding that sexually active young men do worse in their studies is suspect. If it is true, it clearly applies only to young men. As a returning mid life student, I get more action than any of those punks could ever fantasize, and I’m damn near a 4.0 student in the sciences. Back when I was a young college buck (and dangerously close to being an “abstainer”, I was a just-barely B student). Go figure.

  • elmo

    While it is savvy of the president to come prepared with “values neutral” facts behind the policy change, even if statistics and polls said these behaviors were hunky dory a Catholic university is not a place that should facilitate binge drinking and hooking up among its students. It is sad that the president has to provide such secular rationales for implementing policies that encourage students to live up to their faith. This shows how far from obedience American Catholics have strayed.

  • Gia

    Kenneth,

    Have you been to a college campus in the last 20 years? My college had co ed dorms as of the late ’70s, too, but if that or the ’80s is the era you’re referencing, today’s dorm life bears precious little resemblance to those days. Part of the reason for the differences lies in the sorry home lives and general culture mores from which kids today come: mostly broken families, very little parental involvement in their lives, and so on. When kids get to college they often have virtually no frame of reference for how to live respectfully with others, for being considerate or for having self control. A sad picture, for sure, but one I see all too frequently in working with college kids.

  • kenneth

    Well, my undergrad years were 88-92, so I don’t know where that puts me. I haven’t lived in a dorm or even visited one recently, but I find it hard to believe that things are very much worse, or different. In some ways, today’s students seem more serious about academics (in general). Without some firm measures and criteria, I’d be very skeptical of assertions that today’s college kids are much worse.

    When I was in school, they were just beginning to crack down on what had been an insane level of alcohol abuse that had peaked in the mid-80s. Alcohol poisonings and full-scale riots used to be quite commonplace. Campuses were also awash in marijuana and hallucinogens. I suspect those problems have abated somewhat and abuse of prescription pills has risen since then. That may be worse or the same, depending how you measure things. As to the “hookup culture” that’s been going on since the days of Middle Ages university. It’s a big preoccupation with teens and young 20-somethings. We wouldn’t have 6 billion people swarming the planet if it weren’t. As to parental involvement being a factor, you may be on to something, but it’s more complex than it looks. The guys I used to see fail out were usually A)From seriously broken families where they had no oversight and B)At the opposite end, where you had parents who micromanaged and were helicopter parents who never gave their kids the room to try and fail.

    You’re right that most college kids have no frame of reference for self control, living with others etc. Very few 18-21 year olds do. For the middle and upper classes, college has always served as that training ground. For better and (mostly) worse, our society does not consider that age group to be real adults. We do not force them to grow up nor reward them for doing so, outside of a very few places like the military.

    In the long run, I don’t think single sex dorms are going to change any of this. At the same time, I can see why a Catholic university would want to do what they see as being in keeping with doctrine.

  • brother jeff

    Drank like the soviet army. Funny. I remember walking into our bathroom once on a saturday morning and a friend of mine was sitting in the corner with broken glass from a vodka bottle all around him. That was soviet army material.

  • Maureen

    I don’t care how much people drink, frankly. I just never want any girl to face what I did that one summer — when I woke up with my temporary roommate’s drunk boyfriend groping his way into my bed.

    (Thank God for brothers who trained me to punch hard.)

  • kenneth

    On the plus side, no one I knew resorted to drinking after shave or missile fuel or windshied de-icer in true Soviet fashion, but some of them would have, if they had been denied the rotgut from the liquor store!

  • Joseph Marshall

    colleges and universities should concern themselves with virtue as well as intellect

    I find it amusing that so many of the people here who are troubled by “nanny Government” have so little problem with Nanny University. Like many things Catholic, concern with “virtue” by a college is a way of separating the problem of virtue from examination by the intellect. The mere fact that President Garvey starts the justification of this change by an Argument From Authority of venerable Aristotle is a prime indication that, intellectually, he is dealing from a stacked deck.

    There might be real and pragmatic reasons for same-s** dorms. But they are clearly beside the point and are mere makeweight, like President Garvey’s “statistics”, for what is essentially an arbitrary judgment that mere lack of daily contact induces s**ual abstinence and s**ual abstinence leads to alcoholic moderation.

    There are very many same-s** living arrangements on non-Catholic campuses. They call them Fraternities and Sororities. And the increase in s**ual abstinence and alcohol temperance that they create is not very noteworthy. Both Animal House and Kenneth’s Animal Dorm, are prime indicators of the wisdom of G.K. Chesterton’s remark that if men must live without women, they must not live without rules.

    And there is another matter that many do not understand, perhaps even President Garvey. The exaggerated, testosterone poisoned, behavior of young men living together without women, is largely psychological compensation for latent homoerotic impulses and the inner fear that these impulses produce. So is the exaggerated “scorecard” competition for getting laid common among young men in such segregated situations. And, of course, male/male relationships do end up happening fairly frequently under these conditions as well.

    This is such an obvious and well-known commonplace, that it makes me wonder just what President Garvey’s living arrangements were in undergraduate school. I doubt very seriously that they were s**-segregated.

    What’s ultimately even worse is that a college is one of the few places free enough for true and unbiased intellectual examination of the issues of virtue and vice. It is the student, not the college, that needs to concern themselves with virtue as well as intellect. As with so much, what is being offered to them here is a prepackaged answer rather than an honest set of questions for examination.

    Few people know how to make Double Cooked Pork. Everybody knows how to do Chinese take-out.

    [And more people know how to hocus a spam filter than how to set one up properly]

  • Annie

    Joseph Marshall:
    You say “And, of course, male/male relationships do end up happening fairly frequently under these conditions as well.”

    But President Garvey is not suggesting that the students have no contact with the opposite sex, simply that they don’t share dorms.
    Besides, this is a campus in the middle of D.C….it’s not exactly in the middle of nowhere!

    I think C.U. is doing something wise and good. They are acting responsibly “in loco parentis”. I wish that my kids Catholic colleges would do the same!

  • http://jscafenette.com/ Manny

    I think elmo in comment #6 above has hit it on the head:

    “It is sad that the president has to provide such secular rationales for implementing policies that encourage students to live up to their faith. This shows how far from obedience American Catholics have strayed.”

    Why is the head of a Catholic University ignoring Catholic moral teaching for secular jargon?

    I suspect it’s no different than a supposed Catholic like Gov. Andrew Cuomo pushing for same sex marriage. Lord have mercy.

  • Joseph Marshall

    They are acting responsibly “in loco parentis”.

    Hold on a minute. We are largely talking about legal adults. Particularly since “four year” college programs are slipping rather quickly into de facto six year programs due to the constantly increasing need for students to combine work and study, as well as go into debt up to their eyebrows. In Loco Parentis at 24?

    If you read Kenneth’s description of Animal Dorm above and give it any credit [everybody should] you will see that the problem is more complicated than “merely not sharing dorms”, particularly, I think, for men. For many of these incoming Freshmen this will actually be their first intimate contact with male strangers their own age. Men still don’t have “pajama parties” in their teens, at least as far as I know.

    For many, if not most, of the young men involved, their sexual identity is highly fluid, particularly if they have been celibate in High School due to geekiness, unpopularity, or other reasons. You should ask your children sometime how much free social contact [I don't mean work and I don't mean hanging out between classes] they have with anybody but their dorm mates. Particularly if they do work and carry overloads of classes to compensate for financial cares. If they tell you what I think they will tell you, you should think very carefully about what “simply not sharing dorms” means.

    Men imprint on their “buds” as role models when they are “hanging out with the guys” and the dorm experience is far more intense [in all ways] than most of us either know or remember. And, as Kenneth makes very clear, who they will be hanging out with are “young punks”–men of their own age who will largely have exactly the same sexual identity problems [and the same torture of Mom Nature in the form of chronic sexual craving] as they do.

    Moreover, alcohol abuse among them is like alcohol abuse by anyone else, worsened, if not caused, by a high stress lifestyle. And don’t kid yourself. The amount of stress involved with being in college is inherently high, as in any situation where what you are doing changes radically from hour to hour, with nothing remotely resembling either comforting routine, or quiet downtime, available.

    It’s getting worse. Forty years ago, college always felt to me very much like my entire future depended on it. It really didn’t. But there is every likelihood that a 20 year old today will be assuming financial responsibility levels [which they will never be able to bankrupt out of] that I didn’t assume until I was 40. So, for them, the future really does depend on what happens day-by-day and term by term in a way that I think is insane, and with a level of stress coming much closer to armed combat than it ever was for me.

  • Richard M

    Hello Mr. Marshall,

    “I find it amusing that so many of the people here who are troubled by “nanny Government” have so little problem with Nanny University.”

    Perhaps because it’s impossible for me to escape the hand of “Nanny Government” but quite easy for me to apply to a college that doesn’t engage in many nanny policies – if that is my desire?

  • Joseph Marshall

    Hello, Mister M.,

    It may be quite easy for you, but is it really for someone 18 years old who is usually living with their parents who are giving at least some financial support for education? And, as you can see if you’ve read further, I think the belief that it will result in a more virtuous student body is dangerously wrong.

  • Will

    My two daughters went to a Big Ten school in the last eleven years. The dorms they stayed in had separate wings for each sex and a joint eating and lounge area. Both stayed in the dorms for three years, then were in apartments with other girls. You get what you put in. Students have the option to drink and party all of the time, be the exact opposite, or be somewhere in the middle.

  • Richard M

    Hello Mr. Marshall,

    My point was a narrow one: That it is entirely consistent for a conservative who is wary of excessive government intrusion in daily life to have no difficulty with a sectarian university that reduces choices coeducational living arrangements – or for that matter, never offered them in the first place. In fact, I can’t see why a libertarian might object either. The situations simply aren’t analogous. The fact that you think there suggests to me that your analysis is only superficial.

    Your point about parental shaping of that choice does not much cut much ice either, and not just because I had a full ride when it was my turn; I prefer to see families as collective units, since they are still functioning in that manner in supporting that education. He who pays the piper ought to have a say in calling the tune, and in my experience most of the children of religious parents who might privilege a single sex residential unit institution share their parents outlook anyway. In any event, over 90% of the four year institutions out there are still fully coed (as Garvey notes), so you can hardly pretend that prospective college students really craving a coed experience are lacking for options. Rather, it’s the students that don’t that are lacking – badly.

    But this is scuffling at the margins of your real argument – that single sex arrangements don’t carry all the benefits claimed for them, and might actually be worse for male students in some situations. There’s validity in that argument, and I suspect that Garvey would concede much of it. Having been a hall director and RA in a (male) single sex dorm, I would be the first to concede that it does not eliminate sexual contact or other problem behavior; I do think it reduces the former to a manageable level, however, which is usually a relief for those who want an escape from it (especially the girls). Gender segregation is only one variable in the residential experience quality equation, and if this is the only thing Garvey ends up doing to improve it, the results may not improve much at all.

    But I want to focus on your point about young males living together in dorm environments, because I think there’s some truth to what you say. Just getting rid of the women may not solve much and might remove a valuable “control rod” for male communal behavior reactors. But then more than a few women I know (especially when my college started debating coed living arrangements) have turned up their nose at being reduced to that role, and not without reason. The difficulty, I think is that young men need more structure and order – they crave it, in fact, even if they won’t always admit it – and that there was real wisdom in the traditional residential college arrangements that once ruled the day, with live-in faculty, strict behavioral rules, mandatory communal dining, and even dress codes. This might not be for everyone, and I am not necessarily arguing that all colleges ought to insist on it; but I think those that attempt to fully retrieve it as a model, optional or mandatory (more likely the latter), might have very real positive results for their male students.

    Finally, just one other point regarding your statement: “It is the student, not the college, that needs to concern themselves with virtue as well as intellect.” I think that Ex Corde Ecclesiae would disagree with you there.

    But fear not. There are plenty of Catholic colleges that treat Ex Corde as a dead letter where students can be happily insulated from any corporate attempts to inculcate virtue, unless you count mandatory recycling programs.

  • Joseph Marshall

    Well, I think I’d agree that, as an abstract principle, it is better to make your own choices rather than have someone make them for you. I would also agree that there are limits to the applicability of this principle in most cases, though I might not champion the same ones as you do, in which case my offhand remark about Nanny University is really not all that serious or necessary to what I have to say.

    In any event, Animal Dorm is often a reality and CUA had better be prepared for it. It is the alcohol problem that I think is far more serious and far less likely to be solved by non-coed dorms. As I pointed out above, the reasons people abuse alcohol often have a great deal to do with the stress levels of their lives. I did a fair amount of drinking in my own college days, but I did it in a vintage bar where all the “intellectuals” and “artists” hung out and where the talk was as important as both the drink and chasing the female dance students. But tuition levels were such that I had genuine free time to do it, as well as genuine free time to do an immense amount of non-class reading on my own in the library stacks.

    Will the entering Freshmen of CUA, or any University these days, have anything equivalent to this? My suspicion is largely, no. They will have neither the time to do intensive unstructured reading nor to do off-campus socializing due to the grinding mill of low wage work, college tuition, and learning expenses.

    Who they are stuck with in the dorm are very likely to be the major group of people with whom they socialize. Having an all male or all female social set chosen for you at random rather than chosen by you based on mutual interests and ideas is not my idea of stimulating company now, and it wouldn’t have been my idea of stimulating company then. As far as I can see, I wouldn’t have had anything else to do with them but drink.

    I can’t imagine any reason why I would have wanted to go to college at all on the sum total of those terms. I probably would have gone anyway, but the fact that I really wasn’t happy there would have been a very strong incentive to learn to rely on the oblivion of the bottle. Maybe that explains something.

    Why is there such a college student binge drinking problem now? I think the roots may well lie in the combination of anxiety about the future, combined with lukewarm enthusiasm about being in college at all. Non-coed dorms are not likely to help.

    I’m not familiar with Ex Corde Ecclesiae, but I am familiar with the growing number of people in America who think they have all the answers without bothering to have asked the questions. Occasionally they have the right answers, but even when they do, they still have about the depth of a tea saucer.

    Insofar as there was a place, in 1971, where truly learned men [who were quite a bit deeper than a tea saucer] could show you the important questions rather than merely ask you to repeat back the “right answers”, a college or university was that place. It was also the place where you had the time and the resources available to proactively develop a few questions yourself and search for the answers on your own.

    Perhaps there is no such place in the America of 2011. If so, there is no place for a student to be able to concern themselves with virtue and intellect. On that basis, it really doesn’t matter whether the institution concerns itself with either virtue or intellect or none of the above.

  • Richard M

    Hello Joseph,

    1. My understanding is that room selection and grouping won’t be random – just limited by gender. Interests will still be factored in. They will start with just the freshman next year, with upperclassmen grandfathered in.

    2. Ex Corde Ecclesiae is the official Church document outlining the principles by which Catholic educational institutions must operate. The idea is that Catholic universities ought to be, well, Catholic in some real sense. “Catholic” means we try to ask the right questions but that we also think we have some of the answers, and that the answers are true. I think that…it’s not unreasonable to expect that Catholic University try to meaningfully conduct itself along Catholic lines, just as it is reasonable to expect that Yeshiva College should want to conduct itself along Jewish lines.

    3. I think I have to disagree that the culture of binge drinking is reducible just to economic/financial pressures. Something more fundamental has happened in the culture: More broken homes, less religious faith, coarsened manners, a debased popular culture. It’s not the same society it was two or four or six decades ago, and not just because of economics. Financial pressures are probably part of it, but not all.

  • Joseph Marshall

    I really didn’t mean that binge drinking is reducible to “economic pressures”, but alcohol abuse of any kind has a strong link to chronic exterior stress. I’ve suggested above that college life itself is inherently stressful because of the lack of consistent routine in your day and the chronic anxiety about your performance. This is why college and alcohol have been linked since the days of old.

    For whatever reasons, the stress levels have gotten out of hand, have been out of hand for some time, and are slowly getting worse as the expense of being there rises. It’s been quite a while since I have heard of an undergraduate who has enjoyed college, and a very long time since I’ve heard of one who enjoyed college as much as I did, and for the reasons I did.

    But, then, I have seldom heard lately that those younger than me [and not just much younger than me] truly enjoy anything that I enjoyed, whether my love of learning, the open road with a Western horizon, a moderate amount of illicit behavior, or even a religious life, which I still enjoy hugely. And while we all must make do with the society that we have, that growing lack of joy, that growing attitude that life is a dress rehearsal for a play which never opens, is a crying shame.

  • jean g

    The hookup culture has not been part of college life “since forever.” In the 70s–at the height of the sexual revolution–there was a lot of sex on campus but most of it was between couples. Marriage upon graduation was still fairly common. I presume that before birth control became reliable in the form of the pill and readily available to singles, casual sex was even less prevalent on campus. I wonder–do those who defend it have daughters?

  • CUAclassof2013

    I am a rising junior at CUA. I can promise you, from the depth of my heart, that this will not stop anything. I spent many nights in Engelhard, the “all-girl” dorm on campus. Single sex dorming will do two things, make us get more creative with who and where we hook up and drink, create a more hostile environment towards the university and its staff.

    As a frequent drinker like a majority of CUA’s student body, I know that when drunk, frustrations towards the school often found themselves expressed through destructive behavior like, the forced removal of the water fountain from spellman hall in 2009, destroying the wall in Conaty hall in 2010, at least 10 stolen exit signs in one year from conaty hall, vomit stained carpets throughout the building. So I hope CUA is ready for the ramped up frustration towards the school by intoxicated students, which they think this will stop.

    Also, the person who made the point about people who CHOSE to live in single sex dorms being more civilized, totally true. The people who WANTed all male dorms are the few and far between that wanted to go to mass on wednesday not the thirsty turtle for dollar beers. When you FORCE the kids who want to have fun to live in single sex housing you just frustrate the already existing desires.

    I can say with no doubt in my mind, as a run of the mill CUA student, this is not the solution to the problem, the solution to the problem is for CUA to start HELPING students make the right decision, HELP students keep themselves out of trouble rather than being overly strict and making students afraid to exercise good judgment.

  • Richard M

    Hello 2013,

    “Single sex dorming will do two things, make us get more creative with who and where we hook up and drink, create a more hostile environment towards the university and its staff.”

    I don’t doubt that – at least as regards the creativity. I was once an RA and Hall Director at a mostly single-sex dorm state college in the 90′s…and we the staff were well aware that all kinds of creativity was being expended smuggling girls or boys into the relevant halls. We couldn’t catch them all, and we could not exert the intrusion and effort necessary to do so. Likewise with alcohol (we were a dry campus).

    But what it did do was contain the sexual encounters on campus to manageable proportions. It gave additional leverage to and reduced pressure on roommates who weren’t keen on looking away or being conveniently elsewhere while a rendezvous was being conducted in their room/suite. This was especially true of the girls, most of whom were not keen on encountering drunken half-naked men in their hallways at 2am on a regular basis.

    Single-sex dorms won’t fix most of what’s wrong with CUA, nor will adding priests/consecrated religious and chapels, as Garvey is also planning. I suspect both sides are exaggerating the likely impact here. But successful communities require rules in order to function, and it’s possible that new rules such as these may (not “will,” but “may”) make it easier for the university to help students make those right decisions. It’s also possible that students considering CUA will have a harder time not confronting the reality that CUA is, after all, a Catholic school. For those who can’t abide that, there is no lack of options in the Bos-Wash corridor.

  • momor

    With the rising tuitions and failure of a baccalaureate degree to ensure a living wage job upon graduation these days, I think many parents and students are going to be re-evaluating the whole college ‘experience’. I think attendance at junior colleges where students will live at home and work while going to school is going to go up. Frankly, I think it is a good idea for many less mature 18 – 20 yr olds to do a little growing up first before heading off to university.

  • Joseph Marshall

    Old 2013 there is just exactly what I’m talking about. I was too busy having the time of my life in college to cop an attitude like that. And that was at the height of the anti-Vietnam War protests.

  • Stop Whining

    Who honestly cares? It is a Catholic University, it’s conservative, you should already know this in advance. It has an 80% acceptance rate. So, for the portion of students who make up the God Squad, you should be all for this new change and have no complaints if you are saving yourselves for your blissful wedding nights. The portion of you who couldn’t get into any other schools and mommy and daddy can afford the high tuition rate of Catholic, well, you really should have no complaints or say in the matter. You should be grateful you have any dorm to sleep in.

    If it bothers you that much, switch schools. No, maybe it is not going to stop anything, so why is everyone enraged by it? Doesn’t matter if you’re in the building next door or two floors above. If anything, this will help fight obesity in America. Promiscuous students will now have to walk an extra block or two for their 2am booty calls or do the 100-yard dash to escape the wrath of DPS. If anything, President Garvey should be applauded for looking out for the health of the students.

    This also could bring romance back to campus. Imagine a Romeo and Juliet type scene in Flather. But then again, a guy will do anything to get laid. I’m personally curious as to which genders will get which dorms. The brand new Opus building is still immaculate- so who gets the nice properties and who gets the shitty ones? My guess is the ladies will get the new dorms in the hopes that females are still all nurturing and kind and Mary-Mother-of-God like. Well Catholic University, if that were the case, there would not be a need for these silly new same gender dorms would there?

    Either way- get over it kids. You’re young & in college. Guarantee you anyone from the Baby Boomer generation would take your spots in a second so appreciate still being students and stop whining about who your neighbor will be.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X