by barbara wegher
“Half the time no one checks in the guys anyway. If a girl wants to get laid she can do it anytime from 10 a.m. to 2 a. m.—no problem. Or else she can spend the night in the guy’s dorm. The present system doesn’t help anything. It just makes people more dishonest.”
The saddle sore of 24-hour visitation in the women’s dormitories and coed living has again festered on the back of the Trojan horse.
With the submission of a coed living proposal by an independent student committee from Trojan Hall, the sensitive wound, which had seemingly laid dormant for a semester, is once again in the university spotlight.
Frustration and bitterness have marked this as well as past battles in the student crusade for increased control over their living quarters. “There’s no working together in this university,” said Karen Warner, president of Women’s Hall Association. “I’m so tired of going through this whole thing. It’s so screwed.”
The present push for more liberalized living conditions actually has a lengthy history. As late as Oct. 3, 1967, men were polled on “allowing women to visit men’s dormitory rooms for the first time on a regular basis in the university history.”
The results of that poll were overwhelmingly in favor of visitation. One quarter of one percent preferred no visitation and 97 percent preferred no sign-in or sign-out procedure. In addition, 98 percent approved of the closed door policy, where men could have their doors closed while having female guests.
BOTH MEN’S Hall Association and WHA submitted proposals which were rejected by Norman Topping, then president of the university. MHA resubmitted its proposal, with modifications including an open door clause, and Topping finally approved. The women did not receive visitation until the following year.
Ultimately the men’s dorms declared 24-hour visitation, with little outcry from either the administration or the Board of Trustees, which has ultimate control over such decisions.
The stage was thus set for further confrontation. In 1970 and 1971 a massive ID card turn-in, along with numerous proposals including those for 24-hour visitation and right to govern plans, were initiated by WHA. The women’s dorms did receive extended visitation from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. at that time.
Again grumblings surface from the women’s dorms. Petitions for coed living have received wide support in the dorms. In a random polling of third floor EVK and part of first floor College-University, 24-hourvisitation was favored eight to one, with nearly 60 percent of the 80 women polled returning the questionaire.
Coed housing was favored by two and three-quarters to one. The majority favored some sort of ID check with coed living. Nine percent preferred such a security measure duringthe day, 47 percent at night and 42 percent preferred no such check.
HOWEVER, the margin was two to one in favor of no sign-in during 24-hour visitation. As one woman said, “It's nobody’s damn business who's in my room.”
But the women are even more pointed with their comments concerning the 24-hour and coed questions when given an opportunity for additional words.
One coed said she was opposed to 24-hour visitation because “I like to be able to feel that I don't have to get dressed
illustration by william monje
Coed living?
Why not?
daily trojan volume Ixv, number 93 los angeles, California university of southern California monday, march 19, 1973
up after 2 a.m?’ and because the girls require privacy. She also said that if coed living were implemented it would be “more of a security risk” than anything else. She added, “What is so drastically wrong with the present system?”
Other women cited similar reasons for not wanting coed dorms or 24-hour visitation, and included the noise factor. One woman commented, “Friends from other colleges who have lived in coed dorms have told me that they got tired of the situation very quickly. There is no privacy. I wouldn’t like to share my bathroom with boys and I wouldn’t be able to run around in my undies like I do now.”
ONE COED who was in favor of both living options wrote rather than vocalized her views: “I’m in favor of having the option of living in coed dorms. You see, meet and are with people of the opposite sex everywhere, everyday, except in a USC dormitory. It’s unnatural to live in an all-girl or all-guy dormitory. (Even in a home there’s a father, a brother, a mother, a sister—all opposite sexes—living together!!)
“Separating the sexes implies a lack of trust in human nature and in the individuals themselves. If a guy and girl want to go to bed. which seems to be what everybody in favor of segregated dorms is afraid of, they can use either place now anyway.
“If at 2 a.m. a girl is hassled about having a guy in her room then they need only to go to his room, where there is 24-hour visitation. (So it’s all up to ‘where shall we bed down? Your place or mine?’) The trustees or whoever are not going to be able to prevent the situation (sleeping together) and it’s immature to think they can by restricting the love-making to only his place.
“Living together with people ofthe opposite sex has its advantages. Real friendships could grow and barriers could fall. Not only would opposite sexes see each other at their best but also at their worst. Pretentious airs would tumble so people would see each other as human beings, not as ‘I boy—you girl’ images.
“PEOPLE who sit in their rooms vegetating might wander down the hall and introduce themselves. They would be more likely to do it if opposite sexes were there. It’s more interesting to live in an environment that’s not stifled by sexual discrimination. You would encounter more views on different topics.
“It would be nice not to be segregated and labeled “female” or “male” but to be a person. Coed dorms could, if properly supervised, be a growing experience, allowing development for both sexes.”
The proper administration of such dorms does have its difficulties, including physical problems such as bathroom facilities, entrances and security, considering the high crime area in which USC is located.
However, Patty Pilger, head resident for College-University, said, “I’d like to see it (coed dorms) offered as an alternative lifestyle for those students who want it.” As for 24-hour visitation, “It’s nice when you have a birthday party or if you’re studying, you don’t have to feel that you have to shoo every body out at 2 a.m.”
Pilger saw both an increase and decrease in the possible security problems. “Stanford said that vandalism and assaults had decreased because guys were on the floors and they also walked the girls to classes more because they were going the same way.
“HOWEVER, sign-in should be continued. We imist maintain the rule that a guy should be escorted at all times.”
Jonda Rourke. head resident for EVK, said “I don’t see that
(Continued on page 8)