Finding the folly in parietals
Thomas Pariso
Letter to the Editor
On Saturday night, I went to a party with a lady friend of mine. Rather than get sloppy like most of the other partygoers, we left the party and went back to my room to watch some Austin Powers. We got back to my room a little after one in the morning. We started watching the movie, and then all of a sudden, the lights went out; the lights in the hallway that is. Turning off the hallway lights is the intercampus symbol that boys and girls are no longer allowed to play together. At this point, Dr. Evil had not even expressed the inconsequential details of his life and I realized something that a lot of students have probably noticed at this same time: Parietals suck.
Rather than just complain about these rules that we are subject to during our stay on campus, I would like to propose a challenge. I want someone to actually explain why we have parietals. I will not take any answer referring to tradition seriously, because as the renovation of the stadium recently showed, traditions can change. I would like to hear all about the benefits of parietals from an objective perspective. I will soon stake my claim as to why I feel we do not need parietals, but I am willing to consider the opinions of others. So, if you are a student, faculty member, member of the administration or have any connection to the Notre Dame family, I propose to you that you use this forum of free press to contradict the argument that I will explain.
Du Lac states that parietals are instituted in order to "foster the personal and social development of residence hall students and at the same time respond to the safety, security, and privacy needs of students sharing common living space." This is obviously the reasoning that the administration will give for enforcing parietals. As for the personal and social development section of this reasoning, I feel that parietals most likely inhibit the personal and social development of Notre Dame students. This is one of the largest reasons that this campus suffers from strained gender relations.
Based on this past weekend, I would say that taking my friend back to her dorm rather than hanging out with her clearly did not foster our relationship. Telling someone to go home usually is not the best way to strengthen a relationship. Cutting off these male-female relations probably also leads to some personal development problems. Some guys just do not know how to interact with women, due in part to the shadow cast on this campus by parietals. Some examples could be the freshman down the hall from me who scorned his SYR date (before even meeting her) in favor of a case of beer, the guys who just look to get as much action as possible before two a.m. and Zahm. Obviously, this also works for women who are not good at relationships with men.
As for the safety, security and privacy of residence hall students, I also think this is a bogus argument. First of all, our school is one of the safest in the country. Most people feel extremely safe on this campus, and it has little to do with parietals. Dorms are locked at night, or in some cases, 24 hours a day, and we have a great security/police department. I will grant the fact that some girls may feel unsafe, for whatever reason, knowing that there are guys in their dorm overnight. I don't think this should be a big worry, because of the ethical standards of our university and the idea that someone can do the same thing at five at night as they can at five in the morning. But I will address this further when I discuss how we can survive without parietals.
As for privacy, I do not think that there should be a difference if the opposite sex or the same sex surrounds someone, because we have little privacy in these close quarters anyway. As for me personally, I don't think guys can claim that having girls in their dorm would restrict them from walking around naked, basically because they shouldn't be walking around the dorm naked anyway. Seriously, I don't want to see that. Besides, we have cleaning ladies walking around the dorm well before parietals are over. There seems to be no problem of lost privacy or safety in this case.
One of the more popular reasons that most students feel we have parietals is to prevent us from having sex. As we all know, having sex is reason enough to kick us out of the University, because of Catholic standards (which, by the way, I feel is unfair to non-Catholics who have different beliefs). First of all, as I said before, people can do the same thing at five at night as they can at five in the morning.
Secondly, many Notre Dame students do not feel casual sex is acceptable.
Finally, if the good Catholic students are being good Catholic boys and girls, then they will not even think of having sex.
My argument is not based on sex though. I just feel that we would be better off having the opportunity to extend relations with the opposite sex for as far into the night as we see fit, without leaving the comfort of our own room. If my roommates and I want to finish watching the second tape of Braveheart with some of our female friends, we should be able to. If my roommate wants to sleep beside his girlfriend, then he should be allowed to experience that great feeling, as a consenting adult. If I want to have my sister come visit me without getting her a hotel room, I should be able to.
Some clear objections come to mind immediately, so I will try to tackle them and save some people the effort of writing their opinions to The Observer. First of all, some may argue that they would, in fact, lose their privacy if parietals didn't exist. For example, one might say, "How would you feel if your roommate kicked you out so his girlfriend can sleep over?" I think this is a case where roommates can install their own sets of parietals. That is, they should have the say over who sleeps in their room, not the administration.
Other objections would be based around life without parietals. If the administration feels they are such a necessity, then maybe they could still keep some rules. For example, if they feel that girls' dorms will be drastically more dangerous for its residents, then maybe they could have parietals in girls' dorms still. I would be greatly against this also, but limited freedom is better than lack of freedom. Maybe the most plausible way would be having sign-ins on the weekends, as most women's dorms do. The only difference is that you would not have to worry about getting kicked out of school if you don't sign out until the next morning.
I realize that some people do like having parietals. In a poll taken last year, the same number of people wanted to keep parietals as those who wanted to merely extend them.
But, I am afraid that not enough people are truly thinking about this situation. Too many students are just accepting that parietals are here whether we like it or not. Some abide by them, some break them. I just think we shouldn't have them. We shouldn't have to live in fear of getting kicked out of school just for hanging out with a friend of the opposite sex. I realize it is going to be extremely hard to get changes made, but as I stated earlier, my goal for now is to just raise awareness. I want to have an open, intellectual conversation on this topic (that means not calling me names because you disagree with me, or criticizing my grammar). If I just get people to think about parietals and question the need for them, then I will be satisfied, for now. So, to all those in the Notre Dame family, take serious consideration on this topic, and then tell me, what are parietals good for? I say absolutely nothing.
Thomas Pariso
junior
off-campus
February 14, 2001
All Viewpoint Stories for Thursday, February 15, 2001
