The committee wishes to apologize for the misunderstanding caused by the use of the email address boyzofsthildas@hotmail.com. As the use of ‘z’ suggests, it was meant to be tongue in cheek, and the committee was unaware that many consider the word ‘boys’ to be offensive in this case. There was no malicious intent; the committee simply chose an email address it felt could be easily remembered and identified with the pilot project. This unfortunately was used as an excuse by some in the college administration to evade participation in this process.
The committee also wishes to note that each of its members has endeavored to remain as unbiased as possible. Its members may have differing personal opinions, but we have been working solely with the information received from students.
The committee attempted to gather as much information from students as possible. This was accomplished through contacting inhabitants of the co-ed floor to arrange interviews, the publishing of an email address, and open times for reports to be made by interested students not directly involved with the project. This process gave us a well-balanced view of issues, as brought forth by students that we interviewed. We consider these issues in the following four categories, according to our already published terms of reference. Unfortunately, we were unable to conduct our desired interviews with any of the members of the Administration, due to a number of circumstances. So, this report only reflects the student opinion of those who spoke with us; it does not reflect the views of the Administration. Also, it should be noted that this does not necessarily reflect “student opinion” within Trinity College as a whole, as only students who were interested in speaking with us did so; the only way to discover this would be through a college-wide referendum on the issue of co-ed residence.
As per the original JCM resolution, we divided our report into the following four categories: implementation and administration of the project, community, student government and college governance, and necessity.
The pilot project was inspired by
several students who wanted to direct the process of making
According to the students who put forth the initiative, Dean Abbot played only a minor role in the genesis of the project. Dean Bowden told the student who initiated the process that, as a one-year pilot project only, the project could be considered a house issue, and was dealt with accordingly under the jurisdiction of the SHCM. This implies that if the project is continued beyond one year, it should be made a college-wide issue, and not dealt with inside the SHCM alone. There was some controversy over the Provost’s final decision to implement the project as the SHCM and TCM passed differing recommendations, but the Provost made the decision “not to override a legitimate decision of the SHCM was based entirely on that decision’s own compelling constitutional merits.” In order for the project to be considered a house issue only, it must only affect the residents of St. Hilda’s. This is did not occur. Moving eight men to St. Hilda’s did in fact affect both the number of women and the number of professional faculty men now living at Trinity. Trinity was forced to take more of each to compensate for the men at St. Hilda’s, despite guarantees by the administration that the pilot project would not increase the overall number of women at Trinity.
The application process was not advertised, nor was it made widely known throughout College. The only way for men to apply to live on the floor was for them to write that they wished to do so on their floor planning sheets. The men did, however go through a group interview process with last year’s Heads of College, and the Deans.
There were many complaints about a first year being assigned to a large double room by himself. This room could have been given either to two first years, or to an upper year student. If the room had been given to two first years, an additional upper year student could have been offered a place in residence. It should be noted that first-year participation in the project was limited, because out of all of the first year men who applied for residence, only one applied to live at St. Hilda’s. On the other hand, it is possible that interest was limited by the fact that participation required living in a double room. Another complaint was that a third-year male student in the geographical category of ‘A’ who was therefore wait-listed was chosen over several other male students (who had applied for residence at Trinity) on the list ahead of him. In the end, despite the fact that he jumped the queue, the men ahead of him on the list all managed to later find spaces in residence, but it is worth noting that none of the men on the wait list ahead him were offered the room at St. Hilda’s.
The concern was raised that perhaps problems which arose over the year were covered up by the administration in order to compensate for the extra attention directed at the floor. In regards to damage to the floor, instead of the floor being billed as a whole for the damage, as is done at Trinity, the damage was paid immediately out of the damage fund, without the residents of the floor being notified. To be fair, damage at St. Hilda’s is not typically billed to floors, as it usually is not significant.
Complaints were handled differently on Second Main this year than in previous years. This floor was extraordinarily loud, though everyone who spoke with us said that both women and men were responsible for the noise. Last year, according to one student on the floor, the entire floor discussed noise with the Dean of Women; this year, the noise issue has not been dealt with consistently by the administration. There were many noise complaints, and the police were called on at least one occasion. Campus police were also called by a maintenance worker upon seeing glass thrown out a Second Main window. Though the deans had promised to take a hard line on this offence, expelling the offenders, the perpetrator was not disciplined and campus police were dismissed.
There were issues with washrooms. The committee received a very mixed response regarding the sharing of washrooms. Some were willing to use co-ed washrooms, other were adamantly not. With separate washrooms for men and women, concerns over health and safety have been voiced over Second Kirk and Second No-Name. The Head of Arts washroom is considered a private washroom. Also, with a washroom devoted to men, there were significant lineups in the morning for showers for the women.
Some commentary should be made on the lack of preparedness
on the part of the Administration for this Project. For example, at the
beginning of the year, the porters were not informed that men would be living
at St. Hilda’s and the police were called on one occasion when the men who
lived there tried to enter the building.
From the above discussion, the committee concludes that despite the best intentions of the students involved, the implementation and administration of the project was a failure.
This project, from the perspective of those who lived on the floor, was a tremendous success. Almost everyone who spoke with us who lived on the floor had an excellent time. The floor felt like a real community; it experienced spontaneous pizza nights, a gift-exchange, floor sporting events, etc. Not everyone involved was acquainted with the other members of the floor before the school year began, but almost everyone appreciated the floor culture, as it formed and strengthened friendships. One first year was hesitant to live on a noisy, co-ed floor at the beginning of the year; she changed her mind once she grew accustomed to the floor community and told the committee that living on this floor made her a more social person, and that she would love to live on a co-ed floor next year. None of the men involved felt distanced from the Trinity community as a result of this project. Thus the committee determines the community aspect of this project to be a success. It proves that men and women can live together and that men can live at St. Hilda’s.
The men living at St. Hilda’s felt comfortable going to Tanya Magnus when they needed to deal with a Head of College, and they experienced no problems with Dean Abbot, thus showing not only that men and women can live together; they can also govern each other.
The pilot project was a good example of student initiative, but its implementation undermined the process of our student government. Had this project been a JCM initiative, it would have been an excellent example of good student governance. The students who put together this project consulted Dean Bowden, who unfortunately counseled them to consider the project to be a house issue alone, thus unintentionally evading the proper government processes.
Should college government be based on gender? Over whom do the deans have jurisdiction? What about Head of College? What about college meetings? Co-ed residence introduces those questions. From this point of view, the project was a failure. The men of St. Hilda’s did not push for voting rights in the SHCM, for example, and the pilot project did not address any of the governmental issues that would come up if the College was to adapt co-ed residence throughout both residences. In order for this college to move to fully co-ed residence, there are issues that would have to be addressed for the following governmental and administrative areas:
Since the project did not deal with any of these issues, the Pilot Project failed to show us the ramifications of co-ed residence on student government and college governance. It will take a year to examine these issues before we comprehend the affect of co-ed residence on student governments and the changes that will be necessary. Whether we wait for a new residence to be built, or decide to tackle co-ed issues in the residences as they are, college government must be addressed, and much further study is needed.
The committee received a mixed
response from people about the necessity of co-ed residence and the necessity
of the pilot project: some wanted co-ed residence, others wanted segregated
residence. The necessity of the pilot project broke down into three distinct
categories: changing demographics, the right to live with one’s friends,
regardless of gender, and the effort to break down the gender barriers
perceived to exist at
Women living at Trinity are a demographic necessity. Men at St. Hilda’s demographically unnecessary, and because there is not enough space at St. Hilda’s to house all the Women of College, they force more women to live at Trinity, especially if the number of men at St. Hilda’s is increased.
We try, as a college, to make each student’s residence experience as rich as possible. This is why it is accepted that floor planning with one’s friends is the most desirable room allocation system. For a number of students it is vital that they be permitted to floor plan with any student they so choose. Each pilot project participant who spoke with us raved about the richness of this year as a direct result of their co-ed residence experience. At the same time, for certain members of the college, single-sex residence is necessary for them to have the best residence experience possible. It was beyond the capacity of this committee to determine which factor was more important to the student body as a whole. The committee feels that the only way to accurately gauge the more important factor in this issue is through a college-wide referendum.
There is a perception among some students at Trinity that gender-segregated residences foster inequality in the community. The Project has failed to address these perceptions of gender barriers, but this is perhaps an issue outside the capabilities of a pilot project. The committee finds it impossible to predict whether a prolonged co-ed policy could resolve this issue. Therefore, it is the conclusion of this committee that there was no demographic necessity for the co-ed residency pilot project. The value of being able to live with whomever one may choose and the possible dissolution of gender barriers is beyond the scope of this committee to evaluate.
The committee concludes that men and women can live together and enjoy an enriched residence experience. It also concludes that men could be successfully integrated into the St. Hilda’s community. However, the pilot project failed to illuminate the ramifications on Student Government and College Governance should a co-ed residence policy be adopted. This issue combined with administrative difficulties of the pilot project leads the committee to conclude that the pilot project provided insufficient grounds to further a college wide policy of co-ed residency. Such a policy could only be responsibly undertaken after careful investigation of the wider ramifications inherent in such a drastic shift in the nature of the college. This investigation would inevitably reveal a need for a massive overhaul of the college governance structure with student support in order for long term co-ed residence to be feasible at this college.
Respectfully submitted,
Adam Wakefield Krista Johanson Jonathan Bell
Chair Secretary
Geoffrey Homer Tanya Magnus Eleanor Pachaud