CHUL Wants Housing Study To Cover More Than 1-1-2 Plan

The Committee on Houses and Undergraduate Life (CHUL) voted yesterday to ask Dean Rosovsky to add to a proposed study of the 1-1-2 housing plan four alternative systems that would avoid 1-1-2's controversial shift of all freshmen into the Quad and all sophomores into the Yard.

In a long and stormy meeting the panel approved a motion from William H. Bossert '59, acting master of Lowell House, asking Rosovsky to direct the coordinating committee of his educational task forces to study all five housing options now being seriously considered by University Hall administrators.

Administration proposal

The committee rejected the administration's proposal that the coordinating committee analyze only the education aspects of 1-1-2, apparently fearing that emphasis on the highly disputed plan would undercut other options that the panel finds more palatable.

The four other housing options propose:

* Continuing the present system;

* Improving the Quad Houses and then assigning sophomores to Houses on a blind lottery;

* Housing all freshmen in the Quad and turning the Yard into upper class Houses; and

* Placing all freshmen in the Yard and thus limiting the Quad Houses to only the three upper classes.

What will occur next remains unclear. One administration official said last night he expects the seven task forces and their coordinating committee will resist taking on the entire housing problem.

Lunchtime overcrowding

Also during the meeting--CHUL's first this year--the committee heard F. Skiddy von Stade '37, dean of freshmen, report on lunchtime overcrowding in the Union and the time restrictions he ordered into effect last week to limit the numbers of upperclassmen eating there.

During his report von Stade said Union overcrowding during the last two weeks resulted in part from bad weather and from students shopping for courses. For this reason, he told the panel, he will wait until later this semester before making any proposals on further restrictions.

The dispute over studying housing options dominated the session. Francis M. Pipkin, associate dean of the Faculty for the College and CHUL chairman, opened the late afternoon meeting by telling the committee that the administration's summer housing study group asked for the review of 1-1-2.

If CHUL had approved the 1-1-2 review as proposed, the study would have been conducted by the coordinating committee, which includes President Bok, Rosovsky and the chairmen of the task forces. Completion was set for January.

Then, in the words of Currier House representative Katherine Garrett '76, "a fight broke out." House masters and student representatives objected to the emphasis on 1-1-2 and Bossert offered a motion for comprehensive study of all five options.

The brouhaha continued as Pipkin ruled the motion out of order, saying that the agenda called only for discussion of the administration plan and not for a vote. The committee then voted to overrule Pipkin and passed the Bossert resolution with several abstentions but no negative votes, according to several CHUL members.

Bossert said last night the "sense" of the meeting was that the administration should not devote its limited time and energy to studying the proposals that are "not particularly popular" and not likely to happen.

Students were concerned, he added, that giving more attention to the plan would increase the likelihood of its adoption by forcing the administration into "this business of recouping your investment."

Bossert said he had objections to the 1-1-2 plan, which would abolish Houses in the Quad and limit those on the River to the junior and senior classes. "Right now Houses are on the border of being dorms," he added. Implementing the plan would "seriously modify" them, he said.

Several members of CHUL objected last night to the emphasis they believe the administration's proposed study would give to the 1-1-2 plan. Steuart H. Thomsen '76, Mather House representative, said the proposal "looked very biased, especially for people with very serious doubts about the 1-1-2 program."

Thomsen said he has yet to talk to any student members of CHUL who favor the 1-1-2. In addition, he said, masters who haven't spoken about the study are concerned about its effects on the Houses.

Margaret C. Ross '76 of Lowell House said that the proposal "came out sounding very biased" that the "direction" the summer study group had suggested for the review surprised committee members.

Dean Whitlock said last night the summer study group selected the 1-1-2 plan for special analysis because it is so "far out" and "of such great potential either for major change or major destruction at Harvard."

This specific choice, however, was "perceived as a preference" by committee members, Whitlock said.

Whitlock said he tried during the meeting to suggest that CHUL study the other four housing options while the coordinating committee reviews 1-1-2. But, he said, "I don't think anyone heard me.