Harvard: http://www.hupd.harvard.edu/campus-escort-program
Yale: http://publicsafety.yale.edu/security/nighttime-shuttle-safe-rides-walking-escort-service
Princeton: https://publicsafety.princeton.edu/about/faqs
Searching for MIT gave me a bunch of links in German but I assume they have one too.
You listed a bunch of irrelevant stuff like feminine products, which are a necessity. If men need to use them for some reason, I’m not stopping them. Are you? Lactation rooms - can a man go in to feed his baby its bottle if need be? He should be able to, if not then that is wrong. If so, then they are not comparable to a women-only space. If “Woman’s Study Spaces” were a necessity, then all colleges and universities would have them. Apparently, most of us have survived without.
By that logic no university would need anything other than instructors. Books, classrooms, dorms, etc are not necessary.
According to the history of MSU, the Student Union was built originally with a men’s space and a separate women’s space. I guess the men’s went by the wayside.
fwiw: it appears that the Admin made the decision to open the lounge prior to hearing about the Professor’s complain – not law suit.
In addition to the federal discrimination/equal protection rules, I’m guessing that the women’s only lounge also violated the University’s own rules and policies.
If some young women (or men) insist on some single sex study rooms (weird, I think, but…), then why not only have them in single sex residence halls where access is only given to those residents?
Those are all activities which address bonafide physical sexual dimorphism (milk-producing breasts, differences in testosterone).
Studying is not one of them.
How do women’s colleges address sexual dimorphism?
Classrooms are necessary if you want some place for (all) the students to sit and for the professor to lecture without outside disruption. Since classrooms are not excluding X, Y, or Z, they are still complying with Title IX. Dorms are necessary if you want to provide a place for your students to live on the campus. Obviously, there are commuter schools with no dorms. Are you providing ONLY female dorms and no mixed or male dorms?
Besides, the argument is not that schools should only include what is necessary, the argument is that Oregon2016 is comparing things which are necessary (but not exclusionary) to something which is exclusionary but not necessary. Clearly, universities are free to consist of only instructors, but how is that relevant to the question at hand?
Not all students live on campus, so you are still excluding people, although in the residence halls, there often seem to be communal spaces.
Change the concept to a blacks-only or Asians-only or whites-only study space. Or a Jews-only or Catholics-only study space. How does that fly?
At some point these women are going to enter the workplace. There will be no women-only spaces. Best to get used to it.
http://claremontindependent.com/safe-spaces-segregate-the-claremont-colleges/
Oy. Separate but equal. That worked out so well.
If I’m paying $60K a year for a campus, I expect the entire campus to be open to me.
I don’t have a problem with a female only locker room and the guys can have their own too. I’d like them to be comprable, but I know that doesn’t happen. I’m okay with schools allowing groups to have private spaces to meet if all groups are given equal access to those spaces. I can see the need to have twice as many women’s restrooms in concert halls and arenas.
If women are feeling unsafe or even just annoyed because men are approaching them and talking in the libraries, make’no talking’ libraries or rooms.
Separate locker rooms make sense because people get naked in locker rooms. How often do people get naked to study?
@Demosthenes49 Making the case that protects the KKK but prohibits a women’s study room earns you honorary membership in the Federalist Society- congrats.
There is no Title IX violation. MSU made a pragmatic political, economic, and public relations decision to avoid a protracted legal dispute. The historical context of this room, record of past discrimination, and clear intent of Title IX as well as the goals of federal anti-discrimination policies in education do not make this as clear cut as your strict constructionist interpretation suggests.
Is that actually true? My alma mater (state flagship) has two women only dorms, and one men only dorm. There are multiple private single sex dorms as well. There are also still single sex dorms at DH’s alma mater as well.
Some of the posts here are so outlandish, so nonsensical, or so irrelevant that I regret ever taking an interest in this site. The collective wisdom of people who I thought valued the great and wonderful possibilities of higher education is instead summed up by the lowest of the lot as “best to get used to it.” I heard that often from critics of single sex education when I was at Wellesley. Thirty years later and the resentment to building up young women is still there. Instead of aspirations for future generations, the focus of CC users here is on all-access passes to places you’ll never visit just so long as it deprives others of that benefit. Sad.
^Such a lot of hyperbole. Seriously, that’s what they teach at Wellesley?
It’s “sad” that the equal opportunity laws – that many at Wellesley fought for – are now being enforced at a public institution?