Connect with us

All Articles

A Gender Neutral Petition

Delivering the petition to the dean

The push for gender neutral housing made some progress this school year, but those in favor of it say there obviously needs more to be done. To bring attention to this issue once more, Everyone Allied Against Homophobia today officially presented a petition, signed by over 900 Columbia students and endorsed by 20 campus organizations, to Deans Moody-Adams, Peña-Mora, and Shollenberger stating their case.

The statement by EAAH in the petition’s letter expresses “disappointment over the lack of progress this year” and feelings of being “stuck in the mud;” however, it also conveys gratitude to the Columbia administration for taking the initiative this far.  You can read the entire petition here (PDF).

The timing of the delivery of this petition is related to the fact that the first official Open Housing Meeting is taking place next Tuesday, May 11. Be sure to check back for further updates.

Click to show comments

Write a comment

Your email address will not be published.



  • Steven says:

    @Steven Pfau is a pfaubulous human being.

  • unisex says:

    @unisex Next up, unisex bathrooms.

    1. Anonymous says:

      @Anonymous We already have unisex bathrooms in some of the dorms (ex. Hartley and Wallach). I don’t see any problems arising.

      1. unisex says:

        @unisex after that, communal unisex showers

        1. and then... says:

          @and then... mandatory orgies will become part of the core curriculum!!!

          1. ... says:

            @... core-gies, the culmination of clit hum.

        2. would that be so bad? says:

          @would that be so bad? oberlin can handle it:

  • Seriously says:

    @Seriously Give it a rest all ready…The adminstration said no and it will continue to say no…stop wasting ur time

    1. it's people like you who... says:

      @it's people like you who... it’s people like you who keep HETERONORMATIVE BLOODSUCKING NAZIS IN POWER

      1. Anonymous says:

        @Anonymous Are you for real?

  • track? says:


  • anonymous comments says:

    @anonymous comments on bwog spew hatred and filth and the homophobia that all of you are too scared to actually admit to openly.
    Honestly I dont support this policy but that has nothing to do with any of the arguments above. I just think we are not ready, and the policy does not seem as clear in what it seeks as it needs to be for such a comprehensive change. Because there really is no going back on this once it is passed. It could screw up students’ lives and the community on so many different levels if we aren’t sure and completely clear on everything going into it.

  • Confused says:

    @Confused The policy is – no guy+girl in the same room, because it’s too sexual. If the heterosexuals want this changed, they ought to petition for it. But that’s the policy. So gays, who have the wonderful privilege of free voyeurism in gym locker rooms and the ability to room together actually BENEFIT, sexually, from the loophole in the policy. But queers say ‘boo hoo we are being treated unequally (even though it’s better)”!

    The direct response to their call for equality — if this is what they’re motivated by — would be to ask the university to bar gays from rooming together. Then the university policy of reducing sexuality in dorm rooms would be equally applied.

    The *separate* question of overturning the policy on sexuality in the dorm rooms is a totally different issue, and has nothing to do with the fags’ cry for equality. The arguments for this are unrelated from the cause of the homosexual community.

    So I do not support this petition, not because I wouldn’t like to live with my girlfriend, but because the justification for it is incoherant and reaks of the all-too-pervasive militant liberal dogma that’s infected the minds and butt-holes of students around the country.

    1. Wow. says:

      @Wow. You really don’t understand why the students are advocating for this, do you? Your argument is rather pathetic because it shows such a lack of understanding on your part.

      The policy is not for students in a relationship to live together, it’s so that a student who is LGBTQ can have the option of rooming with someone they ARE NOT sexually attracted to — which makes it a cause of the LGBTQ community. They are advocating for comfortable and safe living spaces for these students. You are missing the entire point.

      1. Huh? says:

        @Huh? You say the argument is really so that “a student who is LGBTQ can have the option of rooming with someone they ARE NOT sexually attracted to”.

        This makes even less sense.

        Not all girls want to fuck all guys. Not all guys want to fuck all girls.

        I would assume that homosexuals are the same way:
        Not all gay guys want to fuck all other gay guys.

        If you’d like to free yourself from the burdens of sexual attraction (lol!), don’t room with someone you’re attracted to. I’m friends with plenty of girls and am not attracted to them, and could live with them fine without suffering from a prolonged erection. I assume gay folks are the same? That they don’t just want to fuck every guy insight, so that living with any guy would be oh such a burden…

        So either this policy is founded on
        (a) What “confused” pointed out above
        (b) An absurd position on gay sexual desire
        (c) Some “new discovery” that gays actually want to fuck every guy they’re around

        1. Anonymous says:

          @Anonymous I don’t think the main point is to prevent sexual encounters between gay and straight men or women in dorms. If you read the packet, the arguments are focused on creating a safe space for all Columbia students, especially LGBTQ students who might feel more comfortable living with people of the opposite gender, for whatever reason. Above all, it’s about giving every student the right to choose who they want to live with, regardless of sexual orientation, in order to create a more comfortable and welcoming campus community for Columbia students.

          And to create a system barring individuals who may be attracted to each other from living together would require outing people and smacks of discriminatory profiling.

          1. uhh says:

            @uhh So basically you say it doesn’t have to do with any specific sexuality, but just to give us the ‘freedom’ for whatever makes us comfortable, independent of orientation. This is a totally different argument than the one made by the homosexual community. As “confused” said above, the issue of repealing the sexuality ban (be it for comfort or whatever else you say is valid) doesn’t have to do with homosexuality. And if you claim it does, all you have to do is look at “Huh”‘s comment to see that this postulates insidious claims about homosexuals (that they’re tortured by their desire to have sex with every single male bla bla).

            This rhetoric of ‘freedom’, ‘comfort’, ‘choice’ is a typical liberal stench. I too would feel more comfortable if I didn’t have to walk across campus to have sex with my girlfriend; the freedom would be wonderful. But the university has reasons for limiting this freedom, and these reasons have nothing to do with homosexuality. If you disagree with their reasons, try to shut them down. But don’t give a general argument about “freedom to choose whatever sexual position / housing situation always leads to the best of circumstances!”

            “LGBTQ students who might feel more comfortable living with people of the opposite gender”

            Here’s how I roll, a homosexual male:

            *) I do not wish to have sex with every woman I know
            *) I am friends with many women I do not have sexual relations with
            *) I do not discriminate against woman, and would not object to living with one, sexual or friendly

            It seems like the mentioned LGBTQ students either discriminate unjustly against their own gender or are tormented by their sexual attraction toward every one of their same gender. My healthy homosexuality does not suffer from this bigotry or tormenting horniness. And before I read this proposal, I didn’t think that LGBTQ students suffered from it either.

            1. Anonymous says:

              @Anonymous Wow… you’re confused on so many deep, deep levels. The university administration has no sensible reason for not allowing students to select their own roommates if they happen to identify with the opposite gender. That’s why the Dean of Facilities and the Dean of ResLife both supported the proposed policy. Every student at this school over the age of 18 is legally an adult, and should be able to choose their own roommate if they so desire. At any other school, this wouldn’t be an issue, because most students could afford to live off-campus or in off-campus university-owned housing. Living in the most expensive borough in the most expensive city in the country rules out most of us from having that option, though. That’s why we have four years of guaranteed housing. I fail to see what’s so “liberal” about removing a silly, outdated regulation that limits freedom of choice in the CU housing market. And, for the last time, it’s not just the LGBTQ students who support this policy. There are plenty of straight people who would like to room with their friends of the opposite gender, too. Your weird obsession with who is “sexually attracted” to whom and combatting “the burdens of sexual attraction,” are just kind of freaky and off-putting, and suggest you might want to talk about that with a professional.

        2. Anonymous says:

          @Anonymous If you track this guy above, he has like all the posts right there, even the ones that contradict each other…this guy is weirdly obsessed with stopping GNHousing. Perhaps a Ted Haggard-style closet case?

    2. "Confused?" says:

      @"Confused?" Damn right you are.

    3. End this Gender Neutral insanity says:

      @End this Gender Neutral insanity Up next on the homo agenda: Gender-neutral locker rooms!

    4. lol says:

      @lol so you’re willing to give up the opportunity to live with your girlfriend (although you’d like to) if it means that gays will not be allowed to room together?
      bigoted douchebag.

      i love how you use terms like “militant liberal dogma” to talk about people who believe people should be able to live with whoever they want. HOW RADICAL.

  • KN says:

    @KN I commend the authors of the petition and the various support statements for their eloquence in defending the right of every Columbia student to feel safe in their living space. Good luck.

  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous It might seem irrelevant to someone perfectly happy in their heteronormative bubble, but, at this day and age, thinking that keeping the genders separated in housing will solve anything is awfully 18th-century.

    1. ahahah says:


  • SEV says:

    @SEV yeah barry!

  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous god this gender neutral housing thing is so stupid.

  • and sallied says:

    @and sallied Looking good, Steven!
    Best of luck, you guys.

  • Ad

    Have Your Say

    What should Bwog's new tagline be?

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

    Recent Comments

    Nice video... Hook Up App (read more)
    Columbia Announces Reopening Plans For 2020-2021 Year
    October 24, 2020
    Is Barnard ever going to build a gym or pool or work out rooms, or only continue to depend totally (read more)
    New Health And Wellness Center To Open At Barnard
    October 24, 2020
    If Your Childhood Favs Went To Columbia
    October 24, 2020
    Too much passive voice in this piece. (read more)
    An Announcement From Bwog’s Board
    October 23, 2020

    Comment Policy

    The purpose of Bwog’s comment section is to facilitate honest and open discussion between members of the Columbia community. We encourage commenters to take advantage of—without abusing—the opportunity to engage in anonymous critical dialogue with other community members. A comment may be moderated if it contains:
    • A slur—defined as a pejorative derogatory phrase—based on ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, or spiritual belief
    • Hate speech
    • Unauthorized use of a person’s identity
    • Personal information about an individual
    • Baseless personal attacks on specific individuals
    • Spam or self-promotion
    • Copyright infringement
    • Libel
    • COVID-19 misinformation