Randomization Will Not Work

Last Wednesday morning, the Class of '98 woke up to find out where they will live for the rest of their undergraduate life. Previously, the students had selected their top four housing choices, and--except for the unlucky few students at the bottom of the list--the College randomly assigned them to one of their selections.

However, this year's class may be the last to have any input into the housing lottery. Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57 has indicated that he may decide to randomize the process, ending the current system of non-ordered choice and eliminating student choice from the housing lottery.

Seven years ago, when administrators originally contemplated randomizing the housing lottery, they were concerned about disproportionate numbers of athletes and prep school graduates living in some houses. In deference to students' ardent support for choice, Jewett adopted non-ordered choice as a compromise that would help diversify the houses.

Several years later, non-ordered choice has significantly increased diversity along those lines. While the houses are hardly homogeneous, homogeneity is not the desired end. While each house should reflect the diversity of the Harvard community, each House should be a community of its own where students feel at home. Two years ago, the College reevaluated the lottery process and Jewett reaffirmed non-ordered choice as a workable compromise. However, at the behest of many house masters--who were never satisfied with the current system--the issue of randomization has risen once again.

This time, however, administrators are concerned about the high numbers of Black and Hispanic students in the three quad houses. They fear that the Quad has become a refuge for minority students--a refuge that threatens the diversity of Harvard's social community.

In fact, according to numbers released by the housing office in early 1993--the last time those figures were made public--racial minorities were less evenly distributed among the houses in that year than the four years prior. While the administration has not released any such figures since then, the administration's push toward randomization is evidence that the situation has not improved.

The strongest argument against randomization is that it will not solve the problem that vexes the administration. The self-segregation of minority students in the Quad is a visible phenomenon of peoples' natural tendencies to associate with those with whom they share a common identity, whether as part of an ethnic group, a religious group or an athletic team. This tendency is even more pronounced when the individual finds himself as a minority in an unfamiliar environment. That the problem has worsened in recent years may in fact reflect on the campus' growing diversity that allows minority students to form self-sufficient social groups.

Experiencing diversity, i.e. interacting with peers of different backgrounds, is surely a valuable part of students' education at Harvard. Without a doubt, that practice already exists in classes and sections. But placing students next to each other is not the means to ensure this interaction. Even now, neighbors within entryways do not necessarily interact with each other, weakening the equation between proximity and improved race relations.

In fact, randomization already exists at Harvard but has proven ineffective in ensuring diversity in students' social relations. Harvard first-years have no choice in the assignment of their dorms and of their roommates, but that does not stop many minority students from seeking to live in the Quad in their sophomore year--nor does it halt the less noticeable ties that lead many other students to seek out those with whom they share a common background.

Randomization will not lead to a substantial integration in Harvard's social life, and it will destroy any sense of a house community. Presently, students seek out the atmosphere and architecture that pleases them. Randomization will leave them no say in the basic decision of where to live. Dean of Students Archie C. Epps III has voiced concerns about a void in students' social lives. While he has suggested that the Loker Commons will help fill this gap, the houses are the natural site for students' social lives. The houses may be lacking in fact, but they should be the target of administrators' attempts to revitalize Harvard's social life. By providing more funds and more effort into planning house activities, the houses could recapture some of their original purpose to stand as the center of students' social lives.

Randomization would make the words, "house community," meaningless as it reduces the houses to little more than residential dorms. Students will seek to find community outside of the houses, whether by moving off campus, rushing toward the final clubs or by forming new fraternities and sororities.

The current system ensures that the vast majority of students live in one of their top choices. The lottery usually allows students who seek the quiet and expanse of the Quad or the proximity and bustle of the river to determine where they want to live. And to the extent that administrators worry about house composition, the current system prevents any one house from becoming too homogeneous.

The administration's other professed concern is that first-years spend too much time worrying about the houses and too little time worrying about more important parts of their second semester. But this concern reeks of unflattering paternalism. Harvard students are quite capable of balancing their academic responsibilities with the less than awesome responsibility of choosing a place to live. And besides, the time students dedicate to selecting a house is a great testament to how important they consider the decision.

Jewett and the house masters will randomize the housing lottery unless students make their voices felt. When administrators first contemplated greater randomization seven years ago, more than 1200 first-years petitioned against it. So far this year, there has been some student protest--most recently in the form of an e-mail petition authored by Benjamin J. Torrance '95 who says he has submitted signatures of 190 students--but the activism of past years has not been there. Students who favor choice should make their voices heard, through petitions, e-mail and conversations with Dean Jewett and their house masters.

Students on the Committee on House Life have already supported a proposal to increase the number of houses on the non-ordered choice form from four to six. While we do not support a measure that would so greatly decrease students' say in housing, it would certainly be preferable to a radical move that would destroy the house community.

If the administration considers the current situation untenable, they would be well advised to take smaller steps that students could support, rather than pushing for complete randomization.