Bring Back Ordered Choice for Housing

In his memoirs, John Kenneth Galbraith recalls the days when under graduates applied for admission into Harvard's various houses. Galbraith, who was an assistant tutor in Winthrop House at the time, remembers that at the top the interview form, Winthrop house master Ronald Ferry had listed abbreviations for some nine elite boarding schools, in descending order of prestige.

Galbraith, as Ferry's assistant, was expected to circle the applicant's school. Each young man's prep school became his primary recommendation--for in those days everyone at Harvard was man, and most had gone to prep school.

Since those bygone days of unabashed elitism, Harvard's housing lottery has become far more egalitarian. Efforts have been made to increase house diversity, culminating in 1989 with the adoption of the most recent system--non-ordered choice.

Currently, each first-year rooming group must select four house preference, which are equally weighted by the housing lottery computer. If those four houses are full when the blocking group's randomly assigned number come up, then the unlucky group is assigned to whichever of the remaining houses no one else wants. Last year those houses were Mather, Quincy, Cabot, Currier and Leverett.

Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57 and other high-level administrators allege that even the current system isn't fair enough. As recently as 1989 they have fought for complete randomization.

We believe this would be a step in the wrong direction.

Complete randomization would rob houses of any sort of individuality or character. Knee-jerk fans of diversity seem to forget that Adam's artsiness and Kirkland's Incest Fest bring individuality and richness into their inhabitants' lives. The alternative to house "character" is a system of 12 sterile dormitories, nothing more than place to live, rather than the vibrant communities they are intended to be.

Just as students my choose their activities and concentrations based upon their particular preference, so too should they be able to choose the house in which they wish to live, sleep and socialize. Furthermore, many students will choose houses for reasons as innocuous as proximity to classes and athletics, architecture, dining hall quality, and room quality.

A better plan would be to allow each blocking group to list all 12 houses in order of preference and assign them accordingly. This utilitarian system would achieve that greatest good for the greatest number for Harvard undergraduates.

Any attempt to limit the freedom to choose a house has an insulting and paternalistic aspect. In effect, the College would be saying that, if left alone, students will surround themselves with carbon copies of their "type." It denies that students may have the character and maturity to find a good mix of difference and similarity in their social interactions.

The current policy, with tries to destroy house stereotypes, is also contradictory for its acceptance of personal stereotypes. Saying that "type" would congregate implies that people are defined by their "type"--that they have no depth beyond "jock" or "nerd." In fact, students have many facets and a plan that defines them as narrow representatives of a particular race, creed or stereotype does them a great disservice.

Harvard should be proud that it does not produce cookie-cutter images, but rather unique and diverse students. And yes, we have much to learn from the diversity and excellence that surrounds us. But limiting our choice of surroundings is not the way to let us branch out and apple what Harvard has to offer.