Running head: CHANGING PERSPECTIVES ON GENDER-NEUTRAL HOUSING1CHANGING PERSPECTIVES ON GENDER-NEUTRAL HOUSING9

Changing Perspectives on Gender-Neutral HousingRussell C AivazianLoyola University Chicago

Research in student affairs has long supported the importance of the residential environment on students social and academic development (Willoughby, Larsen, & Carroll, 2012). Residence halls provide an environment where students can interact with their peers, engage in difficult conversations through programming, and confront conflict as it arises with their peer groups or roommate(s). Student affairs professionals working in residence halls have the charge to help create the framework and scaffolding for this learning to occur through the development of programming, upkeep of facilities, and ongoing individualized support for students. As our student population has become more diverse over the past few years, residence life programs and professionals have had to quickly keep up and create dynamic environments for students to learn and thrive. Specifically, students openly identifying as transgender or gender non-conforming are increasing on college campuses, however residence life professionals have failed to meet the needs of this student population and has been slow to implement accommodations or policies that support a gender-neutral housing environment. In their survey of 148 universities, Willoughby et al. (2012), found that gender-neutral housing is a relatively uncommon occurrence in American higher education, but continues to be a point of conversation for residence life professionals. Even though this seems to look promising, gender-neutral policies may face pushback from administrators, parents, and students that complicate the successful implementation of such policies. This paper will look at the considerations brought forth by the Willoughby et al. (2012) using the works of Birnbaum (1988), Kezar (2014) and Manning (2013 to bring an organizational perspective to some of the current initiatives taking root on college campuses to create gender-inclusive housing options.Current Environment for Gender-Inclusive HousingWhile a more popular issue of discussion within residence life programs nationwide, there is very little research regarding the implementation or benefits of gender-neutral housing. Traditionally, gender-neutral housing refers to policies created in residence life department that allow students to pick room spaces regardless of gender. Many universities still practice more traditional housing practices, with students of the same gender living within the same buildings. Other universities, like Loyola have altered this approach and created specific gendered floors that share bathroom facilities. In some circumstances, universities have facilities that house students of both polar genders (male and female) on one floor, with two restroom facilities for students of those genders. As the Willoughby et al. (2012) study illustrated, very few universities have actually created specific gender-neutral housing environments that are not restricted by a persons ascribed gender.It is often cited that gender-neutral housing is an issue that helps create an environment of inclusion for only transgender and gender non-conforming students. While this does seem to be the primary and most impactful benefit of gender-neutral housing, this type of thinking has often pushed administrators to designate a building or floor as the gender-neutral space. Most schools surveyed in the Willoughby et al. (2012) study only had a contingency plan in place for students who identified as transgender or gender nonconforming that helped students on a case-by-case basis. Only 16 indicated that they offer some specific gender-neutral space, however, they only offered this option to a limited portion of the residential population. This type of thinking tends to confine students who identify as transgender or gender nonconforming to specific spaces and may perpetuate an attitude that they are not welcome in campus housing. This population of student benefits from the physical space provided, however these types of policies do not help to change the attitudes of students on campus.As Willoughby et al. (2012) argued that in addition to the benefits of creating spaces for transgender and gender nonconforming residents, implementing a campus-wide gender-neutral housing policy can help students across the university to promote the idea that gender differences are minimal or perpetuated by cultural norms (Willoughby et al., 2010, p. 739) and a way to give heterosexual students more exposure to the LGBT community that would give these students a broad understanding of gender and gender identity (p. 740). I would argue that this will be one of the most difficult movements towards generally accepted gender-neutral housing policies, but creates the most change on campus that want to be an inclusive space for all students. Creating this type of environment would, undoubtedly, take a lot of time to create. More importantly, our course authors would argue that this initiative would have to take buy-in from stakeholders across the university in order to take hold and shift the culture at institutions across the country.Cybernetic ThinkingEven though it was written for audiences in 1988, Birnbaums characterization of the cybernetic institution still carries helps to understand the current environment for institutions of higher education. Combining his understanding of the collegial, political, bureaucratic, and anarchical models, Birnbaum (1988) explained that the cybernetic institution calls on administrators to alter their perceptions about their role and re-characterize their "expectations of what they can accomplish (p. 176). Arguably, rethinking policies in residential life programs must come from the administrator level in order to create a movement toward gender-neutral housing. In an informal survey of the news surrounding the changing environment for residence life programs, many of the changes related to gender-neutral housing have come from the departmental level as departments have had to rapidly respond to the changing dynamic of students. As students request gender-neutral accommodations, universities must first think about how to best accommodate students in the moment. This resembles cybernetic thinking because the organization directly responds to the problem and monitors how students respond to the situation. Using the case study provided in the Willoughby et al. (2012) article, the University of Colorado, Boulders gender-neutral housing policies have evolved through this system. Specifically, their policy has updated as new considerations, such as the possibility of romantic couples living together, as they have continued with the policy. In contrast to the University of Colorado, the University of North Carolina removed their gender-neutral spaces after there was very little student interest (Landecker, 2013). Perhaps one of the faults of the cybernetic organization is that it is based on the assumption that they are self-correcting systems. However, in modern organizations of higher education, driven by assessment and outcomes, we are often quick to dismiss programs that dont quickly meet the outcomes. Additionally with many of the economic pressures faced by residence life departments, professionals often want to see change on the bottom line as a result of policy changes. Even though not much context is given about the University of North Carolina, it shows hat gender-neutral housing policies do not often meet the high demand or interest we believe they may have. In this case, the program was cut before students moved into the residence halls, stopping any real traction for cultural changes at the institution. Birnbaum (1988) recognizes that cybernetic organizations require effective leaders. In order to make the changes to campus culture related to gender-neutral housing, administrators must not wait for higher-level professionals to make a decision. We must understand what students want and continuously provide corrections in order to increase buy-in and create changes in campus climates and cultures.Creating Deep ChangeWorking from Birnbaums (1988) cybernetic institution, Kezar (2014) focuses on the environment needed in order to create deep change on campuses. According to Kezar, second-order, or deep, change initiatives tend to stick because the organizations challenge existing assumptions and beliefs in order to align with the environment (p. 62). Since gender-neutral policies have been framed as a cultural shift at institutions, deep change is an appropriate vessel in order to evaluate the ways in which professionals can approach change. Creating deep change requires both semsemaking and organizational learning in order to be successful and stick. Sensemaking is about changing mindsets, which in turn alters behaviors, priorities, values and commitments (Kezar, 2014, p. 64). When considering gender-neutral housing, administrators must take sensemaking into account if they wish to create deep change on their campus. For quite some time, higher education has looked at this issue as one specific to transgender and gender nonconforming students, without recognizing the benefits to the entire campus community. Sensemaking requires us to develop a new language and begin having a conversation about change throughout the campus. The reality for transgender and gender nonconforming students is that they often do not feel welcome on college campuses due to discriminatory policies and practices (Sander, 2013). Over the last few years, some universities such as The University of Chicago and the University of Vermont have begun to adopt policies for students to add their preferred name to class rosters to prevent any classroom confusion for students and faculty members. This is one of the ways campuses have started to embrace sensemaking in order to create a more inclusive campus culture (Sander, 2013). For gender-neutral housing, administrators should not stop at policy changes in order to solve the problem. Administrators must begin a conversation in order to help change stick and gain feedback from students for continuous improvement. In addition to sensemaking, organizational learning is also important to creating deep change. Organizational learning refers to the ability for organizations to detect errors and find ways to correct those errors and begin the change process. As mentioned earlier, this type of change is already occurring at many campuses related to gender-neutral housing. The results of the Willoughby et al. (2012) study found that 16% of large universities have some type of gender-neutral housing policy in practice (specific spaces, policies, etc.). Another 13% have begun to conduct some type of formal discussion about including gender-neutral options or policies into practice. In order for this change to continue, institutions must adopt frequent assessment practices in order to help the change stay at the institution. As we saw at the University of North Carolina, this is not a process that will create change overnight. We must be ok with the discomfort of change and figure out where we are on the path to change in order to course correct as necessary. Organized AnarchiesAs Manning (2013) asserted, it is important to understand context when proposing change at institutions of higher education. At any given time, a university may be weighing many stakeholder interests, from board members to students and administrators to faculty members. Especially for gender-neutral policies, universities must weigh the interests of students, parents, donors, and staff when creating policies and enacting change. Using the organized anarchy framework may provide some help to understand how change may be enacted. In order to balance these interests and create change, universities must be fluid and provide flexible responses to internal and external changes (Manning, 2013, p. 23). Willoughby et al. (2012) explained that the issue of gender-neutral housing has mirrored the transition from gender exclusive to coed residence halls in the 1960s and 1970s. Coed housing was first tested as pilot programs until students demand led to an accelerated expansion of these housing programs. If campuses are serious about creating changes to their housing policies and their campus cultures, they must listen to students. Additionally, administrators must also listen to the voices of other stakeholders and find ways to combine interests and begin a campus conversation and culture shift.ConclusionThroughout the readings for this course, it is evident that change is a result of energy and time put forth by administrators. In order to change the culture and environment for our transgender and gender nonconforming students, we must use policies for gender-neutral housing to begin the conversation about change. Creating gender-neutral policies can be a beginning, but we should continue to have conversations about how we can use our spheres of influence as administrators in order to create environments for change and inclusion.

ReferencesBirnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Kezar, A. (2014). How colleges change: Understanding, leading, and enacting change. New York: Routledge. Landecker, H. (2013, August 10). U. of North Carolina Reverses Gender-Neutral Housing Policy. Retrieved March 12, 2015, from http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/u-of-north-carolina-reverses-gender-neutral-housing-policy/64513Manning, K. (2013). Organizational theory in higher education. New York: Routledge. Sander, L. (2013, June 2). How Colleges Can Help Transgender Students. Retrieved March 12, 2015, from http://chronicle.com/article/How-Colleges-Can-Help/139595/Willoughby, B., Larsen, J., & Carroll, J. (2012). The Emergence of Gender-Neutral Housing on American University Campuses. Journal of Adolescent Research, 27(6), 732-750.