Does adulthood stop at the dormitory gate?
The toughest experiences I lived as a university student in Algeria didn’t happen inside exam halls-they happened at the dormitory gate, which shuts at 8 p.m. Every time I rushed back after a long exhausting day juggling classes and part-time work, my heartbeat wasn’t racing from fatigue, but from fear. Despite being over twenty, I found myself subjected to humiliating interrogations by the gate guard: “Where were you? Why are you late?” It always ended with a direct threat of eviction, a reminder that I could lose the only roof protecting me from the dangers of the night. That constant fear cost me more than I can express.
I still remember how my smile faded the day I was accepted into my dream internship-only to discover that the team finished work after 8 p.m., directly clashing with the dorm rules. But the question that haunts me is this: why can my male colleague study, work, and return happily to his residence at any hour he wants, while I’m trapped in pressure and intimidation? Here lies the bitter contradiction: in the university residence, male students are treated as adults, while female students-equally adult-are placed under guardianship and punishment. And this isn’t just my story; it’s the story of countless university women across Algeria.
Why can my male colleague study, work, and return freely at any hour,
while I live under constant pressure and fear?
Hiba, an aeronautical engineering student living in Maïza Fatima Zahra Residence (Oulad Yaïch, Blida), sums it up: “Any professional ambition becomes a double burden. I once wanted to do an internship at Algiers Airport, but transportation becomes nearly impossible after 4 p.m., forcing me to arrive late every day.”
This delay is unacceptable for the university administration-they may overlook occasional lateness, but turning it into a daily pattern exposes me to warnings, disciplinary councils, and even expulsion, with no consideration for my financial hardship. That’s why I sometimes avoid applying for internships, and many of my colleagues give up part-time job opportunities, because any request for a late-entry permission due to work is immediately rejected by the dorm manager.
These testimonies reveal that the consequences go beyond scolding-they can threaten a student’s safety. Ghufrane, a public finance major living in El Bouni Residence (Annaba), says: “Breaking curfew exposes many girls to harsh measures, including formal summons sent to their parents, which in many cases leads to domestic violence or being forced to drop out of university altogether.”
Standing at the same gate, at the same time
the rules are applied completely differently depending on gender
Ghufrane continues: “This constant threat pushes me to consider dangerous, unsafe choices. Getting expelled means losing my room, so I’ve often thought about sleeping at strangers’ places as a temporary solution. It’s extremely risky, but in moments of despair it feels like a better option than being homeless until graduation.”
Dounia, a graduate in project management and entrepreneurship and former resident of Kolea Dorm, speaks of the psychological toll: “Honestly, it’s deeply frustrating. I stand at the same gate, at the same time, but the rules change entirely based on gender. It creates a strong feeling that I’m less free, as if I’m under constant guardianship just because I’m a woman. It sends the message that we’re ‘unreliable’ or incapable of responsibility like male students. And the administration imposes this system with a ‘this is the rule-deal with it’ attitude, stripping us of autonomy and maturity.”
“Guardianship Law”: an administrative invention that cancels adulthood
The discrimination faced by female residents goes beyond psychological pressure-there is no legal basis for the “closing hour.” A review of Ministerial Decree No. 42 (June 25, 1998) shows no clause imposing specific timing restrictions on women, nor distinguishing them from men. The curfew simply… doesn’t exist in the law.
Attempts to obtain clarification from the responsible administrations went unanswered.
This absence makes one thing clear: the “closing hour” is not a law-it’s a discriminatory, arbitrary administrative invention. This explains the chaotic geographic inconsistency: in Tebessa, dorms close at 6 p.m., while in Ben Aknoun (Algiers) they stay open until 10 p.m. Such contradictions reveal that the rule springs not from legal obligation but from a paternalistic view of female students.
According to Sofia Boulsnam, a coordinator at a human-rights organization, the legal challenge lies in determining whether the university administration (ONOU) even has the authority to impose restrictions that undermine personal autonomy. She explains that women over 18 are legally adults according to Article 40 of the Civil Code-and no authority may impose guardianship on an adult without an explicit legal provision, which does not exist.
Female students over 18 are legally adults with full civil capacity under Article 40 of the Civil Code.
Sofia explains that internal dorm regulations are administrative decisions that must follow the hierarchy of laws-meaning they must respect the Constitution and superior legislation. Internal rules cannot violate fundamental rights such as individual freedom and legal capacity. While administrations may enforce safety measures, they cannot restrict personal liberties or impose moral guardianship. Any time regulation must consider personal circumstances and-most importantly-must apply equally to both genders.
She stresses that this restriction violates Article 54 of the Constitution, which prohibits gender-based discrimination. Imposing stricter rules on women simply for being women is unconstitutional-even if the administration justifies it through moral or social reasoning.
This discrimination has no legal weight. It stems from a paternalistic mindset that treats adult women as minors. Legally, it can be classified as an unconstitutional administrative act that violates equality and misuses authority to impose social control rather than ensuring safety. Therefore, this practice can be challenged in court on two grounds: violating constitutional principles and abusing administrative power.
A call to end guardianship: When will the bars of tradition fall?
It has become clear that enforcing a “closing hour” on female residents is an abusive administrative practice and explicit gender-based discrimination. While advertised as an old custom intended for safety, in reality it strips adult women of their autonomy and their constitutional rights.
To end this, law graduate Imad Marrah proposes a set of reforms, starting with a clear ministerial directive from the Ministry of Higher Education and ONOU, explicitly cancelling all local curfew practices.
His vision centers on unifying dormitory regulations nationwide to ensure full equality between male and female students and respect constitutionally guaranteed freedom of movement. If safety concerns exist, they should be addressed through objective preventive measures-better lighting, increased security, surveillance-not gender-based curfews. He also emphasizes involving student representatives in drafting dorm regulations to ensure alignment with rights and freedoms.
Imposing a curfew on female residents is an abusive administrative practice and explicit gender-based discrimination.
Ensuring safety is the responsibility of the state-not a justification to strip adult students of their civil capacity. The curfew must fall. It’s time for empowerment. Time for equality. Time for the female resident to be recognized as a full citizen inside and outside her campus.
The core demand now is a complete and immediate unification of dorm regulations for both genders, and the unconditional abolishment of time-based restrictions imposed on women. Our universities must shift from spaces of administrative guardianship to spaces of empowerment and partnership. Let this be the historical moment where the administration upholds the Constitution, lifts the bars of discriminatory custom, and affirms that female students are full, capable citizens deserving safety without sacrificing freedom.**
