FRESHMEN AND HOUSES

In its review of the inter-House dining situation last October, the CRIMSON proposed that Freshmen be allowed limited privileges in any new system that was to be devised. This matter was apparently shelved by the tutor's committee as irrelevant to the problem at hand, and as needing especial consideration. From various points of view it is pertinent to revive the issue at this time.

Aside from the usual arguments relative to the social advantages of the inter-House dining system, the case for Freshman inclusion is made cogent by characteristics peculiar to itself. Foremost, of course, is the necessity that first year men have some basis on which to make their choice of a House. At present, that choice is founded, generally, on rumor, on chance, on any number of vague reasons. It is conceivable that if dining in the Houses did not imply an imposition on his upper class friends, the Freshman would have an excellent opportunity to become acquainted with all seven. Secondly, at a time when Freshman advisers have little influence over their advisees and often even less interest in them, the harrassed first year man might derive much benefit from the informed cynicism of his friends in upper classes.

These arguments are strong and as yet unanswered. The bogey of House rushing, of course, will be given a chance to raise its ugly head. But if the limitation be strict, this need not materialize. And even if it did, there is considerable question as to whether it would not be outweighed by the advantage of giving the Freshman some concrete basis for selection. Then, too, there is the fear that dining halls will be overcrowded. In answer, it is easy to point out that the same fears attended the inauguration of the present inter-House arrangement, and that with the exception of House Dinners there has been no difficulty at all in handling the small shifts.

The number of meals per week which each Freshman will be allowed need not be as great as is allowed each upperclassman who takes 21 meals. As a tentative opening, each man might be allowed one meal a week in any House he chose. Authorities, moreover, have small reason to fear a demand for a reciprocal agreement, allowing upperclassmen to eat in the Union. In short, a move allowing Freshmen limited inter-House dining privileges would be well advised; it could scarcely lead to the abuses which its opponents fear.