The Parietal Changes

Within a few weeks the Masters will decide whether or not to endorse the changes in parietal rules recommended by the Harvard Undergraduate Council. The proposals have considerable merit for the simple reason that they enhance the convenience of living in the Houses, without threatening any radical changes in the character of the House system.

The extension of parietals on Friday night from 8 p.m. to midnight has the clear advantage of making Friday night dating less expensive than it is now. A student would have the alternative of entertaining his date in his room instead of being forced to spend money around the Square or in Boston. The extension would not prevent students from studying on Friday since most of the University's libraries are open that evening. Even with late parietals, the Masters could dampen noise by requesting House residents to refrain from holding large parties in their rooms on Friday night.

The Masters should also allow students to entertain female guests in the Junior Common Rooms whenever the rooms are open. A student and his date do not have to be forced into the street when parietals expire early on weekday nights. Moving the beginning of parietal hours on football Saturdays from noon to 11 a.m. would ameliorate the present situation in which a student has to rush his date into the dining hall for lunch, eat hastily, and then hurry out for the game.

The final revision--abolition of the signout book--would only erase a rule that is already dead letter in some Houses. The books do little to reduce rules infractions, and remain on only as an embarrassing and demeaning nuisance.

Since the HUC announced its proposals, undergraduates have been less openly agitated than they have been over past parietal revisions. This attitude is fortunate, since many of the Masters are quite sensitive to what they consider pressure group tactics. But at the same time, as Gregory B. Craig, the HUC's president, pointed out Friday, the Masters should be given some indication that the suggested revisions command widespread student support. One sensible vehicle for expressing undergraduate sympathy would be a student petition backing the changes, as Craig has recommended.

But more significant would be the institution of a series of low-keyed discussions between the House staff--Masters, tutors, and House associates--and the students. Open dialogues such as these would preserve the calm, reasonable atmosphere the Deans and Masters deem necessary to achieve any changes in the present parietal system.

But these dicussions need not be confined to parietals. They could be extended to confront an issue that worries several Masters: in what direction is the House system being pushed by an accumulation of individual revisions, such as the parietal changes. The Masters have justifiable fears that the Houses are evolving willy-nilly, possibly in a direction no one has planned for or wants. But what the Masters must do is formulate a concept of the desirable development of the House system. What they should not do is block sensible reforms such as the parietal revisions because of vague fears that any change would damage the system.