The Future of Randomization

Randomization was presented last fall as a solution to what administrators saw as a lack of diversity in the houses. But less than two weeks after the policy's initial implementation, the dean of the College has had to reverse one of the policy's major tenets, as criticism from a number of minority student groups has continued to grow.

The decision by Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68 to recommend to house masters that they reinstate the use of gender controls in the housing lottery comes only 10 days after first-years received their housing assignments.

Lewis announced the change in a Committee on House Life (COHL) meeting yesterday, pointing to the uneven gender distribution in many of the houses that has resulted from this year's lottery.

The diversification of house communities has also been challenged by a number of minority students who have sought to self-segregate themselves.

According to an informal Crimson survey, more than 40 percent of black students in the Class of 1999 are members of all-black rooming groups.

Other minority communities say that while they are unsure of the composition of their blocking groups, they fear that randomization may seriously undermine their community.

Members of the Bisexual, Gay and Lesbian Students Alliance (BGLSA) say that the dissolution of traditional gay community centers, such as Adams House and Dunster House, may make it more difficult for students to come out of the closet.

The College has embarked on a new era of student life that administrators hope will be marked by diversity and open-mindedness, but students say that this transition may not be as easy as expected.

Women After Randomization

Of the many changes to student life that will likely follow the implementation of randomization, the change of the gender balance in the houses may have the most immediate impact.

Whereas in past years computer controls ensured that the houses maintain an even balance of males and females, the controls were removed from this year's lottery, leaving some houses with a sizable gender imbalance.

Pforzheimer House, for example, was assigned 69.91 percent males and 30.01 percent females and Eliot House was assigned 65.38 percent males to 34.62 percent females.

"We just decided to take off the controls because we wanted to do it completely randomly," Lewis told the Crimson in an interview last month, noting that the decision to remove the computer controls was actually made by his predecessor, L. Fred Jewett '57.

But in the COHL meeting yesterday, Lewis reversed that decision after seeing the results from this year's lottery.

In an e-mail to the Crimson last night, Lewis writes that he supports the COHL's recommendation that gender balance be restored.

But Lewis stops short of saying that he changed his mind.

"The lottery was run according to a decision and announcement Dean Jewett made last spring," he writes.

Although gender controls may be re-installed next year, the gender imbalance for the Class of 1999 may impact the lives of women living in the houses, Radcliffe of Union of Students President Megan L. Peimer '97 says.

According to Peimer, it may be difficult for women to feel comfortable living in predominately male environments.

But Peimer says that simply changing gender ratios will not affect people's attitudes and that gender balance will not constrain the activities of radical feminists.

"While it is true that some people might feel less likely to make a big deal about their feminism [in predominately male groups], these are the people who would probably be more quiet anyway," Peimer says.

"It is less of an issue than it is for gay and lesbians," she says, "because feminism is a less risky issue to state yourself on."

Minorities at Harvard

Much of the strongest opposition to randomization has come from minority--and particularly black--students who say that the policy is a misguided attempt to change student life.

"The Yard is randomized, but black people still meet each other and stick together," says Chetanna I. Okasi '98, the vice-president of the Black Students Association (BSA). "There definitely is a need for us to stick together, many of us don't feel that there is one big happy family."

An informal Crimson survey of students has found that of the roughly 150 black students in this year's housing lottery, at least four entirely black blocking groups were formed that contained a minimum of 11 students each.

And once they move into their houses next fall, some black students say, randomization may cause black blocking groups to become more insular.

"In Currier House this year, the people who were randomized into the house pretty much stick to themselves," says BSA treasurer Steve J. Turner '98. "I hope this is not a precursor of what will happen in the future."

Members of the BSA says that randomization fails to promote diversity and only serves to restrict student choice.

"How is it that we come in here at 18 and they tell us to pick a concentration, but they can't let us decide who we want to live with?" says Okasi.

But Lewis says that his image of the house system, as outlined by President A. Lawrence Lowell in the 1930s, is that each dorm should be reflective of a cross-section of student life.

"The philosophy underlying the House system since its inception [is that] there was educational merit for all students in living in the same community with other talented students with different backgrounds and interests," says Lewis.

But black students say Lewis' vision is overly-idealistic and does not capture the realities of student life in the 1990s.

"All this idealistic thinking about so-called diversity [is imagined]. Look at what happened in Mather House last week," says Okasi, referring to the discovery of racist graffiti on a Mather House elevator last month.

Albert H. Khine '97, who is co-president of the Minority Students Alliance (MSA), says that the problems faced by blacks may apply to a number of other minority groups as well.

"There are houses at Harvard that are primarily one race," says Khine, who is a Crimson editor. "The issue of wanting acceptance doesn't just apply to African-Americans it affects every group."

But Sewell Chan '98, the president of Asian American Association, says that randomization will not significantly affect the Asian-American community.

"Because there are so many Asian Americans at Harvard, I don't think that housing randomization will make it significantly more difficult for us to find other Asian Americans to meet and socialize with," says Chan, who is a Crimson editor.

One effect of randomization, minority students say, will be that membership in organizations like the MSA and the BSA will increase as students begin to feel alienated by the character of their houses.

"It will strengthen all student organizations," says Sheila M. Swaroop '97, co-president of the MSA. "If you are in a jock house and you are not a jock, you are more likely to join something you are interested in outside of the house."

But Swaroop adds that student organizations like MSA cannot replace what will be lost with the dissolution of house character.

"This further increases the need for a minority student center," says Swaroop. "We see the center as a place for students from different ethnic groups to meet and work together, a place to hang out."

Khine says that students may seek off-campus outlets if they are not pleased with their house's community.

"People might seek other avenues to find a place that they're comfortable, like fraternities and sororities and other off-campus organizations," says Khine.

Alternative Living

Reaction to randomization from the members of the BGLSA has been resoundingly negative.

Unlike the MSA and the BSA, BGLSA members say that randomization will reduce their membership and may discourage students who are questioning their sexuality from coming out of the closet.

"Randomization will pretty much spread everybody out," says BGLSA President Nadia P. Croes '98. "It won't be such a community in Adams and Dunster where people can be safe and won't have to prove themselves.

With Adams and Dunster no longer serving as the center of bisexual, gay and lesbian student life, some BGLSA members say, students will lose one of the few places on campus where students could comfortably deal with their sexuality in a community setting.

"People don't come to the BGLSA when they feel they need a community, they go when they belong to a community," says Lauren E. Hale '98, treasurer of the BGLSA. "If you're in a community of friends that are going, then you are more likely to go."

Cross says that BGLSA will become more essential, particularly for first-years.

"This isn't Brown or Berkeley," says Croes. "For people who are young or confused, we are going to be more necessary than ever."

And BGLSA members say that under these new circumstances, they will need their own resource center more than ever.

"One of the reasons we fought so hard for a resource center is that there is no place on campus to be openly gay," says Hale. "There needs to be a physical location where people can go and talk about their queerness."

Reviewing the Policy

From the current perspective, any analysis of the effects of randomization are bound to be premature.

But the reaction of many students indicates that, from their point of view, several key imperfections remain in the policy.

The system may prove to be fine, but it should remain open to revision, says Jewett, the policy's instigator.

"I don't see any evidence as of yet that certain groups are going to be particularly unhappy," he says. "But if it can be shown to be so over a period of time--say two or three years--than it can be looked at once again."