No question on co-ed housing

I read the news article in The Hatchet about GW’s ban on co-ed housing (“Females forced out of co-ed suite,” Oct. 26, p. 1) with amusement – amusement that co-ed housing is still an issue in this day and age.

I am a faculty member who will be 50 in four years. Twenty-seven years ago, I lived in on-campus housing at Swarthmore College. Co-ed dorms were the norm throughout that school. But in the one house I lived in, an on-campus experimental living community, we went a step further and had co-ed suites.

Perhaps such an arrangement contributed to lascivious behavior; I don’t think so. I think that, on the contrary, it contributed to a more respectful relationship between the sexes. Perhaps GWU can catch up to the times, or at least to 1979.

-Shawn McHale, Associate professor of history and international affairs

Stay serious on opinions page

Since when is the opinions page of The Hatchet an appropriate space for Clayton McCleskey to voice his misogynistic opinions on women’s clothing (“Let’s not be ugly Colonials,” Oct. 26, p. 4)?

First of all, the author attacks women’s fashion specifically for being “ugly” and “unprofessional” without recognizing the overwhelming numbers of men on campus who show up to class in caps and pajama pants. Leggings – typically worn under a skirt or a long tunic – are part of a “look,” whereas pajamas declare, “I don’t care enough to get dressed for this.”

Second, he is also attacking women who do not fit his concept of ideal feminine attractiveness. Who is the author to determine which women should be allowed to wear any article of clothing?

There are too many sources today telling women what they should wear and look like, and the opinions page of The Hatchet should not contribute to this. What makes the author’s piece newsworthy? In the future, leave opinions pieces to issues that actually matter.

-Katie Bolton, junior