This past week, Tufts University released a codified prohibition of sex while a roommate is in the room. The new rule states that students "may not engage in sexual activity while your roommate is present in the room. Any sexual activity within your assigned room should not ever deprive your roommate(s) of privacy, study, or sleep time." There are three problems with this rule: how it was constructed, what it means and what kind of message it sends. The University would be wise not to follow Tufts' example.

The origination of the rule is odious. In its annual review of problems, the Tufts Office of Residential Life and Learning noticed that there were complaints about students having sex in dorm rooms with their roommates present. Seeing this trend, the Office of Residential Life and Learning chose to amend the student handbook unilaterally.

According to the Tufts Daily, Tufts' student newspaper, the chairman of the Tufts Community Union Senate Committee on Administration and Policy was not asked for input. Decisions affecting student life shouldn't be made this way.

Student involvement in decision making of this sort is crucial. Rules on sex in the dorm touch on the right to privacy and directly influence the everyday lives of individual students. And, ultimately, students will decide whether the rule works or not because it will be up to them to bring complaints.

The next problem is what the rule actually means. On first glance, it looks like a good one that will both protect students' privacy and hopefully do away with an annoying and invasive practice. But in reality, this rule cheats students out of a learning opportunity.

Every adult needs to have stressful, uncomfortable conversations at some point in his or her life. College roommate relations acclimate soon-to-be adults to that stress.

Hopefully, this practice gained in college matures students. Students learn how to take a stand and, more importantly, how to compromise. It's instructive for both sides. It demonstrates to the offending roommate that all people in the room have rights and needs.

The enforcement of this rule is another problem. Codification hampers a community advisor's ability to use discretion in deciding a case.

In the current Brandeis system, students can bring problems they cannot resolve themselves to a community advisor. The CA investigates and weighs the complaint. Under a system without a policy like Tufts', the CA can more freely determine whether or not the roommate is looking to manipulate the system for his own benefit and choose whether to refer the alleged offending party to the Department of?Community Living. When the rules are written down, they can be quickly misused or misinterpreted, leading to hasty and often unnecessary punishment.

The message the rule sends is a harmful one. There are no rules in life that deal with awkwardness. Giving students rules about roommate behavior creates a certain dependency and conception of the world that isn't realistic.

When you leave the comfort of on-campus housing, there is little that can be done beyond talk to your roommate if he or she has crazy sex that interrupts your ability to sleep or study. The key to learning how to get along in the world outside of the dorm is to learn how to deal with confrontation and to be flexible.

Brandeis is facing many complicated decisions, and it would be good for the University not to look to Tufts' behavior as a positive example. Brandeis should involve students in the rule-making process. The University should shy away from not informing student representatives or getting student opinion before making a decision.

Brandeis should also leave issues like this up to the discretion of CAs and the Department of Community Living. Students need to practice compromise and communication. Finally, the deans and students should look at this whole affair as a misappropriation of efforts. Brandeis' governing bodies should leave the private lives of students alone and focus on important issues specific to the University.