Inadequacies of public accommodations exposed on campus

On Nov. 3, Houstonians will be asked to vote on Ordinance No. 2014-530, the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO).

The HERO ordinance is designed to amend Chapters 2, 15 and 17 of the Houston code of ordinances prohibiting discrimination in city employment, private employment, city services, city contracting practices, housing and public accommodations.

It is the public accommodations section of the ordinance that is creating controversy. The ordinance states, “discrimination on the basis of Protected Characteristics in privately owned and operated public accommodations, including restaurants, bars, entertainment venues and places of public amusement, hotels and motels and public conveyances (“Public Accommodations”) results in the unjust exclusion of persons and a diminution of their dignity, respect, and status contrary to the public policy of the City and the Constitutional principles on which the United States was founded.”

In other words, if passed, the ordinance will legally allow transgendered people to use the public restroom for the gender with which they identify.

“It is essential for employees to be able to work in a manner consistent with how they live the rest of their daily lives, based on their gender identity,” the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) wrote in a four-page Guide to Restroom Access for Transgender Workers.

The ordinance has many people afraid that the boundaries of their privacy along with their everyday safety will be jeopardized.

“I don’t think it is a good idea because cameras aren’t allowed in the bathroom,” said Samantha Norris, education major. “I see it as a safety precaution and feel that it is definitely a better idea to keep genders separated in this case.”

The reaction to the negative feedback for HERO and similar ordinances has created a #wejustneedtopee campaign, which illustrates how transgendered people will appear when forced to use the restroom based on their birth certificate gender.

In the #wejustneedtopee campaign, transgender males discuss how uncomfortable it is for them to use the female restroom because they don’t want to scare or upset the female occupants, while transgender women discuss the fear for their safety in the men’s restroom.

“The reality is, I just have to pee. And I’m scared,” tweeted @HoustonMomsBlog.

Here at UHCL we’ve already been following the HERO policy. Transgendered students on campus have been using the restroom for the gender with which they identify without incident.

“The accepted practice, not only at UHCL but throughout the country, is to use the restroom of the sex they identify with,” said Ward Martaindale, associate vice president, facilities management and construction.

David Rachita, dean of students, said the university has not had any students complain about being uncomfortable so far.

There are no unisex bathrooms currently on campus. There is one family restroom located in the SSCB building, but it is inoperational.

“There is a family bathroom in the SSCB, but it is locked,” Rachita said. “The restroom has been locked for years due to damages, but has not been fixed since.”

In the event of a complaint, the complaint would go to the Dean of Students and be discussed for further solutions.

Assistant Dean of Student Diversity Linda Bullock says that if the issue of unisex restrooms is not addressed, it could be perceived as discrimination.

“In the last few years, this is an issue that has not really been talked about,” Bullock said. “It is something that needs to be discussed broadly by students.”

In prior years, student organizations have fought for the addition of unisex restrooms on campus and, in turn, the family restroom was added. However, upon the graduation of these students the issue has been pushed aside.

“As a university, we try to be open and accepting of everyone,” Bullock said. “Do we need to make unisex restrooms available? Yes of course.”

Anthony Huynh, communication major, agrees that the issue definitely needs to be addressed on campus.

“It is a good idea to add a unisex restroom,” Huynh said. “If there is a transgendered student who doesn’t feel like they belong in either the men or women’s restrooms, where are they supposed to go? Making everyone feel equal and comfortable should be the main priority.”

Martaindale said the issue has been brought to the attention of the university with the planning of the new buildings on campus.

“The architect/engineering team has not yet been selected to complete the design of any of the new buildings,” Martaindale said. “The need for unisex restrooms has been discussed during preliminary planning meetings and will be incorporated in the design.”

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) points out that “most people take reasonable access to restroom facilities for granted, while transgendered people often face the burden of being confronted or questioned about which gender’s restroom the should use.”

HRC recommends that employees [in the case of UHCL this would also include students] use the restrooms that correspond with their full-time gender presentation. They also recommend the availability of family or single-occupancy restrooms as an additional resource, but not as a replacement resource.

“If available and reasonably accessible, single-occupancy or unisex facilities can serve as a temporary facility for transitioning employees during the transition process, but should not be a permanent solution,” states the recommendation on the HRC website.

Rachita said that, as a state agency, the city’s HERO ordinance would probably not apply to UHCL. However, he goes on to point out the UH System’s Discrimination and Harassment policy already includes gender identity and gender expression as a protected class.

“A UHCL alumna, Josephine Tittsworth, was largely instrumental in having this language included in the UH System policy,” Rachita said.  “So one might be able to argue that UHCL/UH was leading the way before the city starting seriously considering the matter.”