While the government's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on homosexuality in the military has received renewed scrutiny since Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called homosexuality "immoral" this month, at Brandeis, sexual and gender identity discrimination is far more subtle. Specifically, our sex-based housing policy discriminates by failing to acknowledge the complexity of sexual desire and conceptions of gender rather than an outright bias.Sex-specific housing should thoroughly offend both those in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer community and those outside of it.

Brandeis' dorms have a variety of single-sex and mixed-sex floors. However, a clear rule still stands: No two people of opposite sex can share a single room. Even in suites, members of the opposite sex can be suitemates, but not roommates. Jeremy Leiferman, an associate director of Residence Life, acknowledges that this policy is based on a traditional morality structure that views individuals romantically living together as something aversive. This portrays human sexuality as a negative, denied rather than embraced.

Yet, even discounting the libertarian notion that sexuality is a private matter that shouldn't be legislated on, the sex-based stance is patronizing in many ways. First, it assumes sexual intimacy or attraction between any two members of the opposite sex-patently untrue. This policy leaves no room for men who mostly are friends with women and wish to live with one of them, or vice versa. It can make the room-selection process even more onerous and burdensome for some.

Additionally, the policy ignores the fact that same-sex relationships are quite prevalent. According to the 2006 NOVUS guide, 14 percent of those responding to an online survey identified themselves as something other than heterosexual-a more comprehensive study is currently being conducted to more conclusively determine the percentage of the total student body that is not hetrosexual, but it is likely that this number will be comparable or even higher.

If the aim is to prevent intimate partners from living together, then this policy completely misses a substantial portion of student relationships. Male roommates or female roommates should ideally be perceived, in a truly sexual-identity-blind policy, as being equally likely of being in a relationship as couples of opposite genders.

Even more dangerous is the effect that sex-based housing has on individuals with gender-identity conflicts. Sex and gender have medically and psychologically been identified as separate concepts; an individual can be a biological male, but still hold a female gender identity. Sex-based policies perceive identity as a purely binary system, rather than a nuanced continuum of gender concepts.

Therefore, the current policy is extremely dangerous for those transgender individuals forced to choose housing-or as a freshman, be placed-based on their chromosomes rather than their own gender determination.

On campus, there has already been widespread dialogue about gender-neutral bathrooms, facilities without male-female designation. The Shapiro Campus Center already houses several. These bathrooms help prevent feelings of confusion and gender uncertainty, and are thus vitally important to the establishment of equal treatment of all gender identities.

We should not rest with these small steps. In most residence halls, even on mixed floors, bathrooms are still clearly labeled by sex. While our campus has made many strides toward eliminating outright hatred, it is essential that we continue to alleviate discomfort, and the housing policy does not help.

ResLife should be credited for making progress on these issues in recent years; however, we should make clear that as a campus, we want a less discriminatory atmosphere.

Already, many campuses across the country have begun providing gender-neutral housing for juniors and seniors, including the University of Chicago and Harvard University. Data from polls taken before and after implementation show wide-ranging support and appreciation of the policy.

Many of the common fears, such as increased rates of sexual assault, have been unfounded as well. "Absolutely no issues with sexual violence or sexual assault in co-ed rooms" were found at the University of Pennsylvania when a policy permitting co-ed rooming was instituted.

At Brandeis, the integration of such a policy would be relatively easy, as we already have single-sex floors for those uncomfortable with the notion of living with members of the opposite sex, and the pull-in system could be modified to include a consent form for mixed-sex rooms. Removal of sex-specific bathrooms could be a gradual process as well, with mixed floors leading the way. There are, of course, many practical concerns that need to be hashed out, but progress has been made in recent years through attempts to establish Thematic Learning Communities based on gender-blind principles promoting tolerance.

The current policy should offend and infuriate all those who want our university's agenda of tolerance to be truly realized. It is a policy based on a negative view of human relationships and sexuality and one that neither acknowledge the loving intimacy that can come from same-sex relationships, nor the difficulty of being forced to choose from the two sexes. Additionally, it fails to acknowledge that friendships without romantic entanglements can and do exist between men and women. Indeed, such views have no place on our campus.