29G Residents Deserve A Good Housing Choice

As a Undergraduate Council representative for the Southeast Yard/29 Garden St. district, I feel compelled to answer the criticism of the proposed plan to give a small compensation to the 29 Garden St. residents for the inconvenience they have suffered this year.

Moreover, as one of the 1,600 first-year who will be placed in houses next year, I must disagree with the stance taken by Beth L. Pinsker in her article "Going Random" (November 10). The thrust of the article is that the system of non-ordered choice reinforces house stereotypes and therefore should be abandoned in favor of full randomization, which would be "good for the University as a whole, and not for individual students."

First, in regard to the Garden Street residents, the proposed plan seems to be a reasonable compromise that would not significantly affect the housing lottery. The plan would guarantee that a blocking group of more than 75 percent of 29G residents would get one their four choices.

Since only 10 percent of first-years students usually do not get their first choice, the plan would not put other first-year students at a disadvantage. The Garden Street residents have adapted admirably to their location away from the Yard, but their inconveniences should not be overlooked. Their distance from the Yard makes more difficult even the most elementary tasks of having breakfast or meeting a study group at the Greenhouse Cafe. At night, they must wait for the shuttle to avoid a walk which is potentially dangerous, as some Garden Street residents have unfortunately discovered.

Perhaps the biggest disadvantage to the 29G residents is the separation for the rest of their class. Those who belittle the inconvenience of 29G point to Quad residents who cope with their distance from the Yard, or portray the Garden Street residents as whiners who are merely trying to milk advantageous housing from their current displacement.

I Would ask those people to talk to the residents of 29G. Over 100 of them feel strongly enough about compensation to sign a petition to that effect. I am fortunate enough to live in the Yard and understand the inconveniences of living there. A kitchen is great, but one must also pay for the meal plan, and there is no reason for the Garden Street residents to have to spend extra money and time to prepare meals.

I am sure that they would not spend their energy complaining unless they really felt strongly about the issue, and so I feel that their complaints should be addressed by the administration. The current plan for preferential treatment is a step in the right direction.

To the wider issue of randomization, I do not understand why the author of the article wishes to abolish the current system. As a first-year students, I am aware of some of the stereotypes that Pinsker finds so distressing, but I do not find these stereotypes so terrible nor do I think that randomization is the panacea for diversity.

The current system of non-ordered choice allows us to have a limited voice in where we will live for the next three years. Residence is a crucial part of college life; for some people, it is thecrucial factor. It seems only reasonable that we should have some control over our housing so that we do not get randomized into a house that we totally do not want.

There are several factors in housing decisions: athletic and musical facilities, lighting, size of rooms, location, dining services, maybe even the architecture. Reputation of a house may be a factor, but I cannot see that it would be the primary factor when there are so many other considerations.

House character also does not seem to be so inherently evil. The non-ordered choice system had eradicated the lopsided lack of diversity that prompted concern a few years ago. Now the houses have a certain character but are not predominantly homogeneous. Character is good. It adds zest to life. Among people, for example, personalities with strong defining traits are often more interesting than bland, diffuse blends.

I also fail to see how randomization will "cure" this perceived lack of diversity. It is human nature to associate with similar people, and residential separation surely will not prevent friends from partying, going out to eat and otherwise associating together.

The non-ordered choice system seems to be a reasonable balance between striving for diversity and allowing students to have some control over where they live. For the most part, I think Harvard students already value the diversity of this campus and enjoy meeting people of all different backgrounds, nationalities, beliefs, etc.

There is no reason to randomize students to force them into becoming diverse and to leave them to Lady Luck on an issue as importance as housing. Susan Lee '96