I must admit that I am slightly baffled by yesterday's letter, "Gender-neutral housing inhibits initiative." It seems that Christopher Myers fails on multiple points, several of which I will point out in this comment.
Mr. Myers seems to think that gender-neutral housing, if done through "personal initiative," is already available to students at Ohio University. I can assure you that this is not the case. Also, a university initiative does not encourage idleness or discourage personal initiative. This program would show potential OU students that it is a warm, welcoming community.
Myers' third paragraph is so poorly constructed and badly written that it borders on absurd. For a time he seems to channeling some sort of quasi-Ayn Randian spirit when he talks of burdening others.
What burden does gender-neutral housing generate on the student body? None whatsoever. Also, I am very confused as to why Myers included a fossil fuels analogy (or is it an example?). I cannot see the relevance.
Myers then goes on to stress "social cohesion" and "social adaption" while failing to recognize the real problem: Students who do not fit easily into our gender dichotomy are discriminated against on a daily basis. This initiative merely seeks to make their lives a bit easier, but Myers cannot accept that.
Myers then claims that gender-neutral housing, at best, is an attempt to generate revenue. Myers seems to be unable to break free of some sort of market-based, egoistic mindset. Later in that paragraph, Myers' prose takes a certain, shall we say, thesaurus-like tone, and it appears that he is padding his poorly constructed and fallacious argument with large words.
Myers' next claim is that off-campus landlords already provide housing alternatives for opposite-sex couples. First of all, this is not the issue at hand. The initiative is geared toward those who do not identify within our gender dichotomy. Second, it seems Myers has forgotten that OU has a policy of requiring students to live in residence halls for two years.
Myers' comment about pregnancy is too absurd to take seriously. Apparently students at OU never get pregnant, but they will now.
Myers then paints himself as the victim - he, as the defender of modesty and tradition, is the one who is subjected to discrimination, not the students who would benefit from gender-neutral housing.
Overall, Myers makes such a poor argument that it makes me wonder what good arguments could be made against gender-neutral housing. If there are any, I encourage others to present them because Myers has failed at both attempts.
Jared Henderson is a sophomore studying philosophy.
