A Temporary Victory

CONGRATULATIONS, student protesters of the proposed partial randomization of the freshman house lottery. Last week's decision by Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57 to reverse his February 1 endorsement of the masters' plan, which would have reserved a quarter of eight houses for random assignment, is a credit to coordinated student expression.

Credit also belongs to Jewett and masters who lately decided to down the faulty plan--notably so far Mather and Dunster House masters--for listening to house committees and house-based objectors. The administrators' decision to pull out of participation was a fair and rational choice to reject a proposal whose implementation contradicted its purported aims.

The Crimson has stated before why a plan to benefit diversity for the community is sabotaged by the appearance of hypocrisy when certain house masters decide the lack of diversity is not their specific problem, allowing others to sacrifice the principle of choice in their houses. Under such conditions, the best response is to scuttle the entire project.

BUT wait. Those who breathe a sigh of relief at the demise of the plan should realize its dissolution is temporary. Jewett has pledged to press next year for 50 percent randomization of all 12 houses.

The dean's proposal answers critics' charges that 25 percent randomization would be ineffective at breaking down house stereotypes, and that the plan would fail unless implemented in all houses.

The development offers a moment to step back and recall arguments voiced when the masters' plan was first presented. Is it more important to insure that houses reflect campus diversity or to give students a free choice? Is there a problem when choice begins to reinforce house stereotypes over a number years, to a point where statistics reveal that 54 percent of Kirkland House residents were varsity athletes last year?

The answer is yes. Like it or not, the houses fulfill too large a part of student life for them not to offer the same breadth of experience so frequently touted--and rightfully so--as central to the University's educational mission.

Objectors who claim now that they still will never surrender to a plan for partial randomization appear to suffer from a common myopia that distorts their perception of such a plan.

Complaints against the first randomization plan included: that houses with the worst image problems would not participate; that the plan had been implemented without sufficient student consultation; that it would be ineffective in any event because too few students would be assigned randomly; that housing choice had been promised to pre-frosh and lastly, that any plan to assign only some students randomly will always be implicitly unfair.

Jewett's decision and proposal answers all but the final complaint.

As for the last belief, the one-quarter plan would have been a guarantor of mild and subtle change. The one-half plan, though more stern, deserves the same evaluation. It deserves student support.

Some students and administrators have viewed the brouhaha over partial randomization as a mandate for an uncompromising answer--Let the Lottery be Randomed, or Let it be by Choice. There can be no fairness, critics say, unless we have all or nothing.

WHY must a community be so stubborn and unyielding as to discard the obvious benefits of student choice, and not accept in moderation the sacrifice of promoting diversity?

Persons concerned with the apparent unfairness to half a class who might face random assignment forget that the unfairness works to the benefit of the community, and it works within the ultimate numerical fairness of a random lottery. It's not number-crunching to say that the whole purpose of a lottery is geared to help fairly resolve unfair situations.

The point is that diversity is a goal worth some sacrifice from all of us, and a goal that isn't achieved spontaneously. Moreover, diversity is worthwhile in a college which can attain it so easily as Harvard can. Members of the College would do well to pursue a healthy balance between choice and diversity and support Jewett's new proposal.