COLD AND APOCALYPTIC

To the Editors of The Crimson:

I write concerning the remarks of Stephen S.J. Hall, vice president for administration, concerning the measures he expects to initiate for all residential units of the College during Christmas vacation because of the energy crisis. Assuming accuracy on the part of The Crimson's reporters, in the issue of November 29th, I found Mr. Hall's comments to be obtuse and unwise.

Mr. Hall clearly does not comprehend just how many Harvard and Radcliffe students customarily remain in their suites for large portions of the holiday. Some students have no choice but to do so, others prefer to remain for compelling educational reasons. Nor does Mr. Hall appreciate the enormous potential for loss of property, administrative confusion, and sheer hopeless bustle that his proposal to move all remaining students into one house would create.

However, it is Mr. Hall's remarkable insensitivity to the nature of a Harvard or Radcliffe student's needs and rights in this situation that I really object to. A student's suite is his home and he or she is entitled to the privacy, convenience, and comfort that the term implies. Right now, the President of the United States suggests that "comfort" means 68 degrees, but I gather this still means 68 degrees in one's own home. Why should a student receive less?

So much for obtuseness. On to lack of wisdom. Yes, Mr. Hall's remarks lack administrative wisdom. (The concept is not a contradiction in terms.) I'm pleased that the vice president's energy committee has held its first meeting. But has anyone consulted formally with the House Masters, the Committee on Houses and Undergraduate Life, or the Administrative Board of Harvard College? These existing institutional arrangements do serve a purpose upon occasion. It may be that the energy crisis requires drastic measures, but surely the various alternatives need to be explored first and through proper channels (Dean Rosovsky's level-headed suggestion). Before we all decide to move into Leverett House, let's think about it together.

Vice President Hall's pronouncements from on high are particularly distressing to those of us who remember back even four years ago. Administrative insensitivity and lack of grass-roots awareness had something to do with the level of bitterness our community experienced between 1968 and 1970. Similarly, I am not at all sure that Mr. Hall's proposals would violate existing room contracts. Nonetheless, his lamentable dismissal of the procedural premise in the name of necessity certainly ignores an important lesson concerning the integrity of procedures that some of us tried extremely hard to inculcate into our students three and four years ago.

Obviously, Vice President Hall does have a firm grip on his own corner of reality. "Harvard will have to cut its consumption by 30 percent to meet federal expectations." However, the easiest administrative solution should not be mistaken for the fairest. A hard examination of priorities by the entire community rather than reflexive and apocalyptic suggestions from the administration are very much in order. For openers, it would be nice to have some information on the feasibility of other alternatives. Could one wing of each house be kept heated? Would a cut-back of a few degrees make up the 30 per cent deficit over three months? Should the bulk of the sacrifices be made within residential units? What sacrifices, in fact, are being made by other units? Is the 30 per cent cut-back negotiable?

In closing, I would like to suggest that this problem provides one clear case in which the administration should seek a student voice. Those being asked to make the sacrifice have a distinct right to participate in the decision and to shape that decision between viable alternatives. Robert A. Ferguson   Allston Burr Senior Tutor   in Dunster House