Randomized Housing: Jewett's Legacy

In mid-May, after months of deliberation and consultation with students, Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57 chose to randomize the first-year housing lottery.

Next year, students in the class of 1999 will enter the spring housing lottery in groups of as many as 16 and will be placed randomly in one of the 12 undergraduate houses.

This change has been in the wind for years, since the College decided in 1990 to institute the current system of non-ordered choice in the interest of increasing diversity.

Under non-ordered choice, students put down their top four choices in no particular order and are placed in one of the four through a lottery. About 90 percent of blocking groups received one of their four choices in this system, and the remaining 10 percent were randomized.

Many students have said the decision to randomize infringes upon students' freedom of choice and will destroy the College's community feeling.

"Students should be able to choose who they live with," said Kelsey W. McNiff '98, a first-year randomized into Leverett House this spring.

Last month, more than 200 students protested Jewett's decision with a demonstration in front of University Hall and letters to Harvard Club presidents across the country.

But while students argued that randomization will be the death of house spirit, the majority of administrators and house masters, on the other hand, said they believe the houses are not diverse enough.

"I believer firmly in what [former Harvard] President [A. Lawrence] Lowell said, to make each house a microcosm of the College," said Quincy House Master Michael Shinagele."

The History

Randomization is another step in the evolution of the house system that began fifty years ago.

When President Lowell funded the house system in the 1930s, he hoped that every house would be a microcosm of the College.

Until the early 1970s, however, each master chose which students would be placed in his house on the basis of students' applications and interviews. according to Secretary of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences [FAS] John B. Fox Jr. '59.

The College imposed constraints on the number of prep school graduates allowed, as well as on the number of students from academic Group I or Group II allowed per house, Fox said.

In 1971, the application system was eliminated and students were asked to rank all 12 houses.

That system was extremely unpopular, according to Fox.

"Not many got their first choice, but plenty got their tenth or eleventh," he said. "They lived exactly where they didn't want to," In 1977, Fox, who was then dean of the College, implemented an ordered four choice system.

In 1990, the College went to its current non-ordered four-choice system.

The issue arose again last September after an FAS report advocated randomization. The report on the Structure of Harvard College was co-authored by McKay professor of '67, who will become dean of the College on July 1, and Administrative Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences Nancy L. Maull.

Divided on Diversity

As students and faculty prepare their respective positions of randomization, the issue of campus diversity and the appropriateness of mandated diversity threatens to further divide the campus.

Some students say they would like to see house populations that better reflect the diverse composition of the College as a whole, but they add that they do not think that the University can engineer diversity.

"I do think that diversity is important," said Neda Ratanawongsa '96, co-chair of the Leverett House Committee. "I don't know that you can really force it upon people,"

Other students say they like being able to live in groups of people with similar interests and backgrounds.

"I think a lot of people just tend to have more things in common with people who are culturally similar," said Adrienne R.W. Bradley '96, vice-chair of the North House Committee.

And other students want to preserve the "character" of their houses.

"It's important that people have an environment they like," said Andre P. Rubin '97, a resident of Adams House.

But many administrators say that self-grouping has gone on for too long.

As a result of his work on the Standing Committee on Athletics, Shingel says he saw that a high number of athletes live in a few houses. Randomization will stop that kind of "ghettoization," he said.

A recent poll by the Undergraduate Council showed that 82 percent of students are against randomization. At the same time, however, 37 percent feel there is a greater need or diversity in the houses.

At Points during the spring semester, the on-line newsgroup harvard.general was filled with hundreds of postings from students on both sides, the majority overwhelmingly opposed to randomization.

When Jewett finally made the decision to randomize in mid-May pockets of campus activism appeared. Two hundred students rallied outside University Hall in the biggest protest in recent years.

Small groups of students wrote letters to national Harvard Clubs, met with Jewett, gathered 1,000 student signatures on a petition against randomization and discussed further action.

Jewett stood firm in his decision, however.

"There are some cases where you have to make choices and make decisions that aren't going to satisfy everybody," Jewett said after the protest.

"It's not a situation where you have an absolutely perfect decision that is going to please everybody, and on balance, I think we should try this one," he added.

Jewett softened his decision by adding that if the system did not work out after a few years, it could always be changed.

Lewis, who will succeed Jewett on July 1, is not likely to overturn the decision.

"I have no immediate plans to reconsider Dean Jewett's decision on this, and I agree with his statement that the decision ought to stand for three or four years before it is evaluated," Lewis wrote in an e-mail last week.

But student protesters are still hoping.

"I think this is the beginning, not the end," said co-organizer of the protest John D. Shepherd '95. "I think the administration can't help but reconsider its decision."

At least one administrator, Master of Adams House Robert J. Kiely, has stood behind the students in their quest for choice.

"The least diverse of our houses are more than 100 times as diverse as University Hall-diversity is a relative matter.So you wonder, who are they to tell you to bediverse?" Kiely said at the May 23 protest.

The Class of 1999

Early in the spring semester, Jewett said hewanted to decide the question of randomizationbefore May 1, when prospective first-years had tomail in their acceptance to Harvard.

That did not happen because Jewett said hedecided the matter was not that pressing.

"I think that we can inform them when they gethere in the fall in a formal way," he said in lateMay.

Members of the class of 1999 interviewed saidknowing about the decision would not have affectedtheir choice to come to Harvard.

"It's a significant thing once you're there,but it's not an issue before you get there," saidAgeliki V. Kyriakopoulos, a member of the class of1999 from Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.

Those contacted about the issue generally saidthey could see both sides.

"I can say I like diversity, but I canunderstand I would be upset if I ended up in ahouse I didn't like," said Massy Tadjedin of YorbaLinda, California.

One entering first-year said while having achoice is appealing, not having to make one wouldalleviate stress.

"Having a choice also adds another pressure,"said Geoffrey C. Upton from Queens, New York."Having no choice means there's less to worryabout when the time comes. It's not a big deal forme."

Allowing first-years to focus on choosing aconcentration instead of choosing a house was anargument put forth by many house masters in favorof randomization.

One incoming first-year said not havingrandomization essentially allows Harvard to have"theme housing"--people of a certain race or withcertain interests living in one dorm--like someother colleges.

"Some colleges consciously choose to have thatkind of theme housing," said Rosslyn Wuchinich, aManhattan resident who will be a first-year in thefall. "Harvard doesn't have it, and if theadministration doesn't want it, it makes sense notto have it be done informally [through the presentsystem]."

Some pre-frosh did say having a choice wouldenhance their undergraduate life at Harvard.

"If you're happy in your surroundings, you'regoing to be a successful person," Kyriakopoulossaid.

Alumni Letters

One major form of student protest against thedecision, according to Benjamin H. Torrance '95,founder of the Coalition Against Randomization, iswriting to the presidents of Harvard Clubs acrossthe nation. Torrance said a few weeks ago he senta letter to his home Harvard club in Sacramentoand urged other students to do the same for theirhome cities.

"I think if enough alumni come through--writeto Jewett or call Jewett--and express some sort ofoutrage about this decision, that would make adifference," Torrance said.

But two presidents of Harvard Clubs reachedlast week said they had not yet received such aletter.

"I spoke to a couple people on the board today,and nobody brought that up yet," said DesmondWong, president of the Harvard Club of Chicago. "Ihave not received a letter."

If Robert E. Schauer, outgoing president of theHarvard-Radcliffe Club of Los Angeles, doesreceive a letter, he said he is not sure whetherhe will send it out to the 1,100 members in hisarea.

"The most likely thing that would happen is youmight print an excerpt of it mentioning it's anissue at Harvard," Schauer said. "I don't know ifit would be a good thing for us to take a positionor not, because as an alumni club we're not hereto joust with the school. The next president mightfeel differently.

The Class of 1999

Early in the spring semester, Jewett said hewanted to decide the question of randomizationbefore May 1, when prospective first-years had tomail in their acceptance to Harvard.

That did not happen because Jewett said hedecided the matter was not that pressing.

"I think that we can inform them when they gethere in the fall in a formal way," he said in lateMay.

Members of the class of 1999 interviewed saidknowing about the decision would not have affectedtheir choice to come to Harvard.

"It's a significant thing once you're there,but it's not an issue before you get there," saidAgeliki V. Kyriakopoulos, a member of the class of1999 from Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.

Those contacted about the issue generally saidthey could see both sides.

"I can say I like diversity, but I canunderstand I would be upset if I ended up in ahouse I didn't like," said Massy Tadjedin of YorbaLinda, California.

One entering first-year said while having achoice is appealing, not having to make one wouldalleviate stress.

"Having a choice also adds another pressure,"said Geoffrey C. Upton from Queens, New York."Having no choice means there's less to worryabout when the time comes. It's not a big deal forme."

Allowing first-years to focus on choosing aconcentration instead of choosing a house was anargument put forth by many house masters in favorof randomization.

One incoming first-year said not havingrandomization essentially allows Harvard to have"theme housing"--people of a certain race or withcertain interests living in one dorm--like someother colleges.

"Some colleges consciously choose to have thatkind of theme housing," said Rosslyn Wuchinich, aManhattan resident who will be a first-year in thefall. "Harvard doesn't have it, and if theadministration doesn't want it, it makes sense notto have it be done informally [through the presentsystem]."

Some pre-frosh did say having a choice wouldenhance their undergraduate life at Harvard.

"If you're happy in your surroundings, you'regoing to be a successful person," Kyriakopoulossaid.

Alumni Letters

One major form of student protest against thedecision, according to Benjamin H. Torrance '95,founder of the Coalition Against Randomization, iswriting to the presidents of Harvard Clubs acrossthe nation. Torrance said a few weeks ago he senta letter to his home Harvard club in Sacramentoand urged other students to do the same for theirhome cities.

"I think if enough alumni come through--writeto Jewett or call Jewett--and express some sort ofoutrage about this decision, that would make adifference," Torrance said.

But two presidents of Harvard Clubs reachedlast week said they had not yet received such aletter.

"I spoke to a couple people on the board today,and nobody brought that up yet," said DesmondWong, president of the Harvard Club of Chicago. "Ihave not received a letter."

If Robert E. Schauer, outgoing president of theHarvard-Radcliffe Club of Los Angeles, doesreceive a letter, he said he is not sure whetherhe will send it out to the 1,100 members in hisarea.

"The most likely thing that would happen is youmight print an excerpt of it mentioning it's anissue at Harvard," Schauer said. "I don't know ifit would be a good thing for us to take a positionor not, because as an alumni club we're not hereto joust with the school. The next president mightfeel differently.