The Duke Room Draw

I will give the administration the benefit of the doubt here, and assume that though they may not have taken specific issue with the dorm trade that is cited in the post, they did not want to encourage a market centered around buying and selling assigned rooms. The administration's main argument would likely center around the idea of fairness and the worry that money would become an overly coercive factor.

Is this argument valid?

Is trading in this case unfair? The author of the blog makes the case that the administration is being ridiculous, and I would tend to agree, though he is a little too abrasive and sarcastic. Why would the administration complain about fairness? The fear would probably stem from a situation where the richer students offered overly coercive sums of money to buy the rooms that they wanted, which would likely be the highest quality rooms. Those who couldn't afford to buy a room would be relegated to the left-overs. Freshman who didn't know any better may also sell their room due to the offer of money and then later regret it, another issue the administration probably feared. An interesting question arises: are there situations where trade is immoral? Though the temptation is to say yes, I would argue that in this case and in most room trades, there has been nothing immoral. Take the example that large sums of money overly-coercive and therefore immoral in room trading. If I was the student selling the room, I would love the extra money, especially if I did not have too much preference for which room I was in. The money could be spent on books, food, and other needs. It would be great! Ironically, the more money I get, which is to my benefit, the stronger the argument gets that the money traded is overly coercive. I would not complain if somebody tomorrow offered me $15,000 for my room. It's a lot of money, and like most college students, I could certainly use it! On the side of the supplier, is it immoral for them to offer it? No. If the student with the room does not want to sell their room, they may say no. A room, in my opinion, is not such a key good as to validate the overly-coercive argument. Even in extreme examples where massive sums were offered, I can see no reason why that would be to the detriment of the seller. Surely one college dorm cannot be that different from the next.

And here is the kicker. The only way one college dorm can be that different in value from another is if one group truly values it highly or really does not like where they are at currently. In this example, the frat in the quiet part of campus would have a strong interest in moving. And here is where markets succeed. By offering money, the frat would be able to acquire a better place to live, and the seller would be compensated for the inconvenience of moving their room. Everybody benefits: the frat has the location they want, and the seller has more money. If money wasn't offered formally, a black market would likely develop anyway, since the frat would have a large incentive to acquire a different dorm. Side payments would inevitably be made and then hidden. An even worse outcome could also be overly coercive, and could come in the form of bullying, harassing, or using other means to virtually force people out of their room. A money currency is certainly more desirable.

If they do not object to a voluntary trade system, there is no valid reason why the Duke administration should prevent money from playing a part.