The Evictions

IT IS NOT YET POSSIBLE to assess certain responsibility for the eviction of six South House students by the House masters and the administrative board at the height of the fall term exam period. It is still unclear whether the masters' and ad board's decision was arbitrary and disproportionate to the offenses--this appears to be true so far, since those involved in the decision to evict have refused to explain the decision to the students. But the incident points up much more than the faults of individual administrators or students; it demonstrates execrable problems with the administration housing and student discipline.

First, the decision to evict the students--apparently carried out by the ad board--was made without the students present, and the six had no opportunity to answer charges against them from other South Houses residents or even know who their accusers were. The students were vaguely charged with "disorderly conduct" by the masters only in a letter to each of them ordering eviction. The letter came without prior warning or a bearing.

Earlier this year, the Faculty's Commission of Inquiry ordered that ad board and COI members refuse to publicly disclose the facts and the decisions rendered in disciplinary proceedings involving students, claiming that this order was designed to protect students. But the South House incident gives ample evidence that such secrecy can hurt students and that its only clear result is to keep decisions make by University officials concerning students away from public scrutiny.

The eviction letter--coming during exam period--ordered the students to leave South House at the worst possible moment for those involved. Moreever, the decision was based on a right the University should not have, the ability to order student tenants evicted on as little as one minute's notice, according to Harvard's deputy general counsel. This feature of room contracts denies students a routine privilege extended to normal tenants: the right of adequate notice in the case of eviction.

And it seemed that nothing less than a wish to punish the offender further led Eleanor C. Marshall, assistant to the deans for Harvard and Radcliffe housing, to say last week that the students would not be able to be given rooms in any other houses until "data" on openings became available several weeks into the new semester. It is impossible to believe that Marshall cannot locate six open spaces in the entire University housing system.

Whether the decision to evict the students was a justifiable response to the conduct the six were charged with by some House residents in The Crimson--drunkenness, rowdiness, and hazing among them--will not be known unless the students are given a chance to defend themselves against their accusers and the Pians, South House's masters, justify the eviction. Thus far, the incident has only revealed how unfair secret University decisions involving students can be.