Pets

for "conditionally permitting" pets, but the CHUL has not even seriously discussed this possibility.

But there now appear to be a few signs of constructive action as tomorrow night's meeting approaches. The House Committee in Quincy has told Quincy CHUL representative Rod Petersen that it would like to have pets in this House and will be responsible for jumping on owners who abuse their animals. Petersen had already expressed an interest in bringing the issue to a full discussion. Perhaps Moore and his subcommittee, which saw its report go by the boards, will begin to feel properly indignant about the way its recommendations were shelved.

There's a possibility that other representatives will go to the CHUL meeting with a few instructions from their constituencies. Michael L. Ryan, chairman of Quincy's House Committee, said Sunday that he'd talk to chairmen of other House Committees about taking a position like Quincy's.

One girl in Quincy wrote a letter to Senior Tutor Roger Thomas explaining why she should be allowed to keep her cat. Thomas xeroxed copies and sent them to Dean Epps and to the CHUL. The letter made some suggestions, including a system where-by students would register their pets with their Houses, and if others complained about the animal, the owner would be forced to give it away.

But it could be that I'm getting my hopes up for no good reason. After all, when was the last time a Harvard committee did something that made you feel like smiling? Will I be able to turn to Dukey with satisfaction and say, "Well, Dukey, this case is closed."?