There's many, many things wrong with the Fox & Friendscommentary, but that doesn't make it any less funny.
1.When I was at Grinnell, lo many years ago, the dorms were mostly co-ed by room and most floors had either coed bathrooms or dial-a-john. The bathrooms in all the dorms were set up in such a way that you could undress, shower and redress in privacy in a stall, then step into the shower. These aren't the huge group showers of high school locker rooms. They afforded significantly more privacy than most locker rooms at most gyms.
2.The policy their upset about has been in place for three years and has produced positive results without the much feared epidemic of shagging and shacking up.
3. It doesn't take much creativity to figure out how to live together - get a same sex roommate, draw for a double, have your SO draw for a single, have your SO and your roommate swap (unofficially of course). It happened alot. My friends who attended larger schools were amazed at the casual living arrangements at Grinnell.
4. The Victorian terror that two college students might have sex and that must be prevented at all costs is equally funny and pathetic. Since parents can't keep high school students from doing the nasty, exactly why does any one think colleges will be able to keep college who are mostly legally adults from making the beast with two backs? Besides, if two college students want to have sex, they are adults and provided they manage the risks and behave responsibly, who really cares? The practice of chastity for its own sake makes little sense.
5. The previous rooming regime created de facto discrimination against straight couples - same sex couples could (and did) regularly receive officially sanctioned dorm rooms.
6. Conservative terrors around showers are truly mind-boggling. First they were panicked that straight soldiers might shower with gay soldiers. Now these three chuckleheads are terrified that college students might be in adjoining showers. I'd suggest there's a deeper psychological pathology at work but frankly it's just the Victorian assumption that naked = sex.
7. Grinnell's dorms are relatively small - within a few weeks, your floormates feel like odd siblings and seeing a boob or a dick or a set of buns is a non-event. I had a floormate one year who was very self-conscious and within about ten days, everyone knew and when he was in the bathroom, people stayed out. Nobody ever talked about it or made a big deal out of it, they just respected his boundaries. I don't imagine that other small colleges are any different. While the larger dorms at schools like the U or BYU might not foster similar community, students at smaller schools (at least in my experience) are remarkably adept at learning to live together with a minimum of sturm und drang.
When I started college, my grandmother thought it would be fun to go with me so she and my mother and I headed off to Iowa. My grandmother was shocked to realize that my dorm was coed by room. I treated it as no big and she caught up pretty quickly, but we're talking about a woman who was, at the time, in her 70s, had been born and raised in Utah, and had never gone to college. I doubt she ever saw my grandfather naked. So her surprise was understandable and manageable. None of these Fox Anchors are anywhere near that demographic.
Lots of folks who socially conservative no doubt find Grinnell's approach a bit too much, it certainly becomes are part of the general gone t0 hellness of the world narrative that is a key component informing the conservative world view. Lots of otherwise decent folks are incredibly easily scandalized at the goings on of those decadent kids today and the colleges that enable them. BYU has successfully capitalized on that dynamic with its strict dress and behavior codes. Other evangelical colleges have similar policies for similar reasons. I've cited Judith Levine's book Harmful to Minors repeatedly and her argument seems relevant - trying to protect young people from sexuality in almost any form, denying that adolescents can enjoy a healthy expression of their sexuality, pretending young persons are entirely free from sexual thoughts, generally result in greater, not less, harm.
I'm sympathetic toward the concerns of social conservatives. I understand their concerns; I believe they're worrying about the wrong things. When I was at Grinnell, there was an epic amount of screwing, making love, having sex and directed and undirected horniness and lust. More than few people did the walk of shame on a regular basis. But lots of people didn't. Lots of people know the opportunities were available and refused to avail themselves because it didn't fit their personal values. Even young people know their values and if they're secure in them, they won't become wanton libertines as the first chance. A little casualness toward adolescent and young adult sexuality would ease a great many adult concerns if only because we'd understand that we can trust young people to do what's right for them.
crossposted at www.oneutah.org