Last week, Tufts shot down a pilot plan to test out coed housing at the University. While such a progressive plan represents a move towards greater student autonomy and choice, schools' hesitation in enacting such a program seems poorly justified to say the least.

The Harvard Student Handbook states that it intends to safeguard "the right of all community members to be free of undue disruption in their academic and residential lives." In order to achieve that goal, the University believes that, "fundamental principles, rather than ironclad rules, must govern consultation and decision-making on residential life."

Colleges have a clear conflict of interest. They can't break the law. They have to please parents and alumni. And of course they want students to be happy and productive. This creates some obvious deviations between stated policies and practical applications. Why not call a spade a spade and make the policies reflect a real compromise between these interests rather than try to meet both with one set of rules for the books and one for the students?

If they want to, kids are going to sleep together in college irrespective of what the school or their parents say. Having an ironclad rule disallowing choice with respect to coed housing only serves the wishes of a small group of parents and students, and neglects the wishes of a great many more.

The Tufts Transgendered, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Collective (TTLGBC) was one of the primary agitators in favor of coed housing. The example they gave in which coed housing is the best solution is that of a gay student who doesn't feel comfortable living with other men. But that necessarily means that homosexuals have the choice of whether they want to live with men or not. What will the school say when heterosexuals want to live with their boyfriends or girlfriends, or just want to live in a coed dorm with friends? The only way for the school to eliminate sexual tension among roommates is to force students to declare their sexuality on their housing forms, which is morally repugnant. Homosexuals have a legitimate claim to have the option for coed housing, but it is discriminatory not to give heterosexuals that option as well, on these or any other grounds.

Independent adult students have a right to make their own housing decisions. But if parents are paying for college and housing, they deserve to have some say over their investment, over whom their child can live with. As a compromise, the school could allow the majority payer of each student's tuition decide whether the student may live in coed housing or not. First years shouldn't be randomly placed in coed dorms, but upperclassmen should have the right to live with whomever they want, male or female. We live in a pluralistic society, and the university is in the business of educating, not moralizing. To impose some moral criteria on housing that is neither consistent nor universally held is impractical at best and immoral at worst.

Certainly it would be easier for the school not to allow coed housing because of the inevitable conflicts of throwing the proverbial wrench of gender and relationships into the housing mix. But if the school is unwilling to make the lifestyle choice for us--in the form of a curfew or parietal rules--the least it can do is let us have the choice. As a general rule, laws should conform to the reality of their application. Whenever people learn that laws don't have to be obeyed--as is the case now with drinking--the ability of administrators and law makers to regulate behavior gradually washes away. As the housing rules now stand, anyone who really wants to can have just about any housing situation he or she wants to. As a matter of principle, if the school achieves nothing with its current situation, why not change the laws to conform with reality to give greater legitimacy to housing regulations in general?

We students are old enough to vote, old enough to die for our country, and we are old enough to be responsible about these decisions. We should have the option to live with whom we want to. We should have as much freedom to choose our roommates here as our counterparts living in apartments. Students should not be forced to live in coed dorms, but to deny students the right to do so is neither consistent nor purposeful.