They Master Their Own Domain

You might see them eating in the dining hall once every chicken teriyaki, and many of them make a mean cheesecake. But what do the masters of Harvard's 12 upperclass Houses do on a daily basis?

In their own minds, the role of master is not as clearly defined as other administrative positions on campus, and each couple has a slightly different conception of the post.

Quincy House Master Michael Shinagel says he serves as "the skipper of a major cruise ship." Cabot House Master James H. Ware says he feels like "the mayor of a small town."

And as each House has its own architecture, each set of masters has its own style; some choose to foster student initiatives, while others focus on improving the House's physical resources.

Even with the controversial decision of randomization soon to be reevaluated, and the imminent retirement of two of the Houses' longest standing masters, this distinguished group is taking change in stride. The show must go on.

What exactly does go on behind the ivory curtain separating the walnut panels of the masters' residences from the postered walls of student rooms?

What is it like to be master of the House?

More Than An Occasional Tea

A master's role is part-administrative, part-ceremonial.

When there is a tutor to hire, a letter of recommendation to write or a seminar to approve, the master is in the House.

"It's a question of dealing with roommate issues, and space and open houses--and who can pick up the kegs because no one's delivering," quips Eliot House Co-Master Kristine L. Forsgard.

However, many agree that mastering involves an often-imbalanced use of their time.

"We spend 90 percent of the time on 10 percent of the students," says Stephen A. Mitchell, master of Eliot House, recalling the adage of a former colleague in Pforzheimer--then North--House.

When planning events in the House, masters cantake varied approaches--from pro-active todetached.

"The students make or break life in the House,"says Dunster House Master Karel F. Liem. "I cancatalyze what the students are trying to do. I canencourage them. I can help them financially. [Butin the past] if I tried to do something on my own,it invariably failed."

Liem cites his "Works-in-Progress" program,which incorporates Senior Common Room members intoa mealtime lecture series in Dunster, as a "greatidea--I thought."

"I ended up forcing students to go and listento the professors," he says.

The Harvest Moon Festival also flopped "becausestudents were just not interested," he added.

Kirkland House Master Donald H. Pfister hasencountered the same problem.

"I come up with an idea and think it will bevery dandy," Pfister says, "but I am often humbledby the discovery that not everyone thinks it is socool."

Liem says he provideS funds for the DunsterHouse Opera, but the House dining hall's musicalextravaganza was completely spurred by studentinitiative.

"I would have never thought the Opera wouldhave come off the ground," Liem laughs. "Now itbrings such richness to the House."

Certainly masters would agree that their liveswould be much easier if supporting student groupswere their only activity.

It's not.

Double Duty

Ware is the acting dean of the School of PublicHealth while Pforzheimer House Master James J.McCarthy is the head of the Museum of ComparativeZoology.

And the list goes on. House masters dodouble--or even triple--duty, often serving ashigh-level University administrators andprofessors in their fields.

Assuming the responsibilities of the mastershipoften means sacrificing professional and personaltime.

"You can't do everything--you have to givethings up," says Leverett House master John E.Dowling '57, who will retire at the end of thesemester after 17 years at the helm.

Accustomed to lecturing around the world,Dowling says he had to adjust his travel schedulebecause of House obligations.

"I haven't minded that so much," says Dowling,who is also Cabot professor of the naturalscience. "What's important is to prioritize.Masters can get burned out early on if they try todo everything. You have to call your shots. Youhave to pace yourself to be a long-term master."

McCarthy, who joined the ranks of House mastersin 1996, says he and his wife Sue did notanticipate the extraordinary demands placed ontheir heads.

"We tremendously underestimated the time andwork involved," McCarthy says. "It's a commitmentto access, a job that's not so rigidly definedthat our functions must be developed in anycertain way."

Many of the masters' spouses also maintainoccupations outside their capacities as Houseco-masters.

"It is a professional activity that we canshare," Ware says of the opportunity to work withhis wife, Janice. "Here's something we can dotogether. It's a more connecting sort ofprofessional activity."

The position, masters say, is built for two.Many find themselves with their hands, full,juggling the House, their careers and family.

"This is a job on top of everything else," saysForsgard, who is also deputy director of academicprograms at the School of Public Health. "I spendabout an hour on the phone with the House officeevery day."

Forsgard says she and her family do not spendas much time in the Eliot House Dining Hall asthey would like. Her family, she says, needs sometime together--alone.

"Dinner is too important and we can'tcompromise that," she says.

At least once a month, however, the mastersforego the privacy of their own homes for that ofa colleague's.

Welcome to the Council of Masters.

Behind Closed Doors

In the Dowlings' living room at 25 DeWolfe St.last Wednesday, the House masters sipped tea andnibbled on imported cheeses, participating in atradition that has stood the test of Harvard time.

The monthly Council of Masters--formalized in1991--is a way for its members to discuss thesuccesses and failures of their individualinitiatives, to converse with high-leveladministrators from University facilities such asthe Office of Career Services and UniversityHealth Services, and occasionally to vote on largepolicy issues.

For example, "in the wake of the MIT death, werevisited alcohol policy," says Winthrop HouseMaster Paul D. Hanson.

The parlor-room discussions, hosted in masters'homes on a round-robin basis, is "a gentlemanlyprocess," McCarthy says. "There's a classydimension to it."

But discussions and debates are not necessarilystaid.

"Masters are very vocal," Liem says. "They'revery lucky they are not on television."

Wednesday's meeting included a chat with Deanof the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles, and featured adiscussion on the academic and social roles of theHouse community.

Last month, President Neil L. Rudenstinevisited the Council of Masters, sharing hisobservations from meeting with alumni acrosscountry.

"The dominant tone is a group of friends withsimilar responsibilities," Ware says. "There arevery few issues that have the potential topolarize."

Randomization, anyone?

Life Without Choice

Before Ware or McCarthy joined the Council,masters had participated a heated debate--a debatethat may be rekindled in the near future.

The spring 1995 decision--known simply as"randomization"--placed all first-year blockinggroups in randomly-assigned Houses. Previously,the College had taken smaller steps to limitstudent preference, with the larger goal ofdiversifying the makeup of each House community.

"History constantly gets rewritten," says Deanof the College Harry R. Lewis '68. "People saythat the Houses were supposed to be special.President [A. Lawrence] Lowell [class of 1877]didn't have that in mind...Each House is supposedto be a cross-section of the College."

Many masters say they agree with the ideal ofdiversity, and feel that the decision three yearsago has placed Harvard on a positive path.

"If randomization brings diversity, and thatdiversity is inclusive...that's wonderful,"McCarthy says. "And that does seem to happen."

"The gods of randomization smiled on MatherHouse," says Master Sandra Naddaff '75. "Indeed,randomization has given us a more diversepopulation. That's not to say we didn't love thecharacter of the House as it was before."

Shinagel says he spent "10 years or morefighting for randomization."

"Harvard spends millions of dollars to find aheterogenous, diverse class--geographically,racially, politically, socio-economically,"Shinagel says.

"From the barrios in Los Angeles to a penthouseon Park Avenue," Shinagel says he believes that"one of the things people come to Harvard for isthat heterogenity."

Dowling says he feels every House should bewelcoming to all undergraduates.

"If a gay student can't feel comfortable inevery Harvard house, then I think there's aproblem," Dowling says.

But a significant minority of masters opposedthe move to randomization, arguing that theprevious system preserved the unique character ofthe Houses.

Adams House Master Robert J. Kiely Kiely hassupported student choice in the past, voicing hisviews at a May 1995 rally outside University Hall.

Yet while acknowledging the "good things tocome of it," Kiely says randomization changed analready nurturing place.

"I know my space was a very rich, unique andpositive space for people who were there," Kielysays.

Liem, Forsgard and Mitchell also sided againstrandomization in the 1995 decision.

"I am an advocate of a diversity that arisesthrough students choosing to take advantage of theCollege's impressively diverse population, not adiversity that comes from students having theirpersonal roles in the process ceded to acomputer," Mitchell says.

William H. Bossert '59, who will retire at theend of this term after 23 years of service, warnsagainst relying on randomization to solve deepersocial concerns.

"If there are problems with social inequities,let's talk about race relations," he says.

"Students should be able to choose where theylive and take responsibility for that," Forsgardsays. "Students don't have enough responsibility."

And since students will be choosing their ownhousing after college, Liem says House choiceallows one to "start that process of [deciding]where you want to be."

Liem characterizes the initial debate amongmasters as divided.

"Clearly the Quad wanted to randomize, and theold river houses didn't want to," Liem says."There was clearly a subdivision... Winthrop was aswing vote. I remember very distinctly it was theswing vote that made the decision."

Pfister says the discourse was more one-sided.

"A large majority was in favor of randomizationor it wouldn't have happened--certainly," Pfistersays.

Yet, according to Dowling, the degree to whichmasters reached a consensus was inconsequential.

"Let's face it. When [the masters] make adecision, it's really advisory to the Dean,"Dowling says.

Mitchell says there may have been a majority ofmasters in favor of the policy, but ultimately thedetermination was made independently--by the Dean.

Though it was then-Dean of the College L. FredJewett '57 who made the decision on randomization,Lewis says he agrees the Dean makes final policychoices.

"We don't operate by either consensus ormajority," Lewis says. "I ultimately make adecision with lots of consultation from themasters."

With the debate to reemerge after a full cycleof random assignment, some masters sayrandomization has not accomplished all it wasexpected to do.

The next step then, masters say, is toreevaluate blocking group size.

Sixteen's A Crowd

Randomization may try to diversify the Housesystem, but often-homogenous blocking groups canprevent the realization of this goal, masters say.

Hanson says the status quo is not perfect.

"[The current system] has not led to thecross-section model," Hanson says, citing thelarge number of athletes who entered WinthropHouse this fall. "WeA-5MASTERCrimson File Photo

When planning events in the House, masters cantake varied approaches--from pro-active todetached.

"The students make or break life in the House,"says Dunster House Master Karel F. Liem. "I cancatalyze what the students are trying to do. I canencourage them. I can help them financially. [Butin the past] if I tried to do something on my own,it invariably failed."

Liem cites his "Works-in-Progress" program,which incorporates Senior Common Room members intoa mealtime lecture series in Dunster, as a "greatidea--I thought."

"I ended up forcing students to go and listento the professors," he says.

The Harvest Moon Festival also flopped "becausestudents were just not interested," he added.

Kirkland House Master Donald H. Pfister hasencountered the same problem.

"I come up with an idea and think it will bevery dandy," Pfister says, "but I am often humbledby the discovery that not everyone thinks it is socool."

Liem says he provideS funds for the DunsterHouse Opera, but the House dining hall's musicalextravaganza was completely spurred by studentinitiative.

"I would have never thought the Opera wouldhave come off the ground," Liem laughs. "Now itbrings such richness to the House."

Certainly masters would agree that their liveswould be much easier if supporting student groupswere their only activity.

It's not.

Double Duty

Ware is the acting dean of the School of PublicHealth while Pforzheimer House Master James J.McCarthy is the head of the Museum of ComparativeZoology.

And the list goes on. House masters dodouble--or even triple--duty, often serving ashigh-level University administrators andprofessors in their fields.

Assuming the responsibilities of the mastershipoften means sacrificing professional and personaltime.

"You can't do everything--you have to givethings up," says Leverett House master John E.Dowling '57, who will retire at the end of thesemester after 17 years at the helm.

Accustomed to lecturing around the world,Dowling says he had to adjust his travel schedulebecause of House obligations.

"I haven't minded that so much," says Dowling,who is also Cabot professor of the naturalscience. "What's important is to prioritize.Masters can get burned out early on if they try todo everything. You have to call your shots. Youhave to pace yourself to be a long-term master."

McCarthy, who joined the ranks of House mastersin 1996, says he and his wife Sue did notanticipate the extraordinary demands placed ontheir heads.

"We tremendously underestimated the time andwork involved," McCarthy says. "It's a commitmentto access, a job that's not so rigidly definedthat our functions must be developed in anycertain way."

Many of the masters' spouses also maintainoccupations outside their capacities as Houseco-masters.

"It is a professional activity that we canshare," Ware says of the opportunity to work withhis wife, Janice. "Here's something we can dotogether. It's a more connecting sort ofprofessional activity."

The position, masters say, is built for two.Many find themselves with their hands, full,juggling the House, their careers and family.

"This is a job on top of everything else," saysForsgard, who is also deputy director of academicprograms at the School of Public Health. "I spendabout an hour on the phone with the House officeevery day."

Forsgard says she and her family do not spendas much time in the Eliot House Dining Hall asthey would like. Her family, she says, needs sometime together--alone.

"Dinner is too important and we can'tcompromise that," she says.

At least once a month, however, the mastersforego the privacy of their own homes for that ofa colleague's.

Welcome to the Council of Masters.

Behind Closed Doors

In the Dowlings' living room at 25 DeWolfe St.last Wednesday, the House masters sipped tea andnibbled on imported cheeses, participating in atradition that has stood the test of Harvard time.

The monthly Council of Masters--formalized in1991--is a way for its members to discuss thesuccesses and failures of their individualinitiatives, to converse with high-leveladministrators from University facilities such asthe Office of Career Services and UniversityHealth Services, and occasionally to vote on largepolicy issues.

For example, "in the wake of the MIT death, werevisited alcohol policy," says Winthrop HouseMaster Paul D. Hanson.

The parlor-room discussions, hosted in masters'homes on a round-robin basis, is "a gentlemanlyprocess," McCarthy says. "There's a classydimension to it."

But discussions and debates are not necessarilystaid.

"Masters are very vocal," Liem says. "They'revery lucky they are not on television."

Wednesday's meeting included a chat with Deanof the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles, and featured adiscussion on the academic and social roles of theHouse community.

Last month, President Neil L. Rudenstinevisited the Council of Masters, sharing hisobservations from meeting with alumni acrosscountry.

"The dominant tone is a group of friends withsimilar responsibilities," Ware says. "There arevery few issues that have the potential topolarize."

Randomization, anyone?

Life Without Choice

Before Ware or McCarthy joined the Council,masters had participated a heated debate--a debatethat may be rekindled in the near future.

The spring 1995 decision--known simply as"randomization"--placed all first-year blockinggroups in randomly-assigned Houses. Previously,the College had taken smaller steps to limitstudent preference, with the larger goal ofdiversifying the makeup of each House community.

"History constantly gets rewritten," says Deanof the College Harry R. Lewis '68. "People saythat the Houses were supposed to be special.President [A. Lawrence] Lowell [class of 1877]didn't have that in mind...Each House is supposedto be a cross-section of the College."

Many masters say they agree with the ideal ofdiversity, and feel that the decision three yearsago has placed Harvard on a positive path.

"If randomization brings diversity, and thatdiversity is inclusive...that's wonderful,"McCarthy says. "And that does seem to happen."

"The gods of randomization smiled on MatherHouse," says Master Sandra Naddaff '75. "Indeed,randomization has given us a more diversepopulation. That's not to say we didn't love thecharacter of the House as it was before."

Shinagel says he spent "10 years or morefighting for randomization."

"Harvard spends millions of dollars to find aheterogenous, diverse class--geographically,racially, politically, socio-economically,"Shinagel says.

"From the barrios in Los Angeles to a penthouseon Park Avenue," Shinagel says he believes that"one of the things people come to Harvard for isthat heterogenity."

Dowling says he feels every House should bewelcoming to all undergraduates.

"If a gay student can't feel comfortable inevery Harvard house, then I think there's aproblem," Dowling says.

But a significant minority of masters opposedthe move to randomization, arguing that theprevious system preserved the unique character ofthe Houses.

Adams House Master Robert J. Kiely Kiely hassupported student choice in the past, voicing hisviews at a May 1995 rally outside University Hall.

Yet while acknowledging the "good things tocome of it," Kiely says randomization changed analready nurturing place.

"I know my space was a very rich, unique andpositive space for people who were there," Kielysays.

Liem, Forsgard and Mitchell also sided againstrandomization in the 1995 decision.

"I am an advocate of a diversity that arisesthrough students choosing to take advantage of theCollege's impressively diverse population, not adiversity that comes from students having theirpersonal roles in the process ceded to acomputer," Mitchell says.

William H. Bossert '59, who will retire at theend of this term after 23 years of service, warnsagainst relying on randomization to solve deepersocial concerns.

"If there are problems with social inequities,let's talk about race relations," he says.

"Students should be able to choose where theylive and take responsibility for that," Forsgardsays. "Students don't have enough responsibility."

And since students will be choosing their ownhousing after college, Liem says House choiceallows one to "start that process of [deciding]where you want to be."

Liem characterizes the initial debate amongmasters as divided.

"Clearly the Quad wanted to randomize, and theold river houses didn't want to," Liem says."There was clearly a subdivision... Winthrop was aswing vote. I remember very distinctly it was theswing vote that made the decision."

Pfister says the discourse was more one-sided.

"A large majority was in favor of randomizationor it wouldn't have happened--certainly," Pfistersays.

Yet, according to Dowling, the degree to whichmasters reached a consensus was inconsequential.

"Let's face it. When [the masters] make adecision, it's really advisory to the Dean,"Dowling says.

Mitchell says there may have been a majority ofmasters in favor of the policy, but ultimately thedetermination was made independently--by the Dean.

Though it was then-Dean of the College L. FredJewett '57 who made the decision on randomization,Lewis says he agrees the Dean makes final policychoices.

"We don't operate by either consensus ormajority," Lewis says. "I ultimately make adecision with lots of consultation from themasters."

With the debate to reemerge after a full cycleof random assignment, some masters sayrandomization has not accomplished all it wasexpected to do.

The next step then, masters say, is toreevaluate blocking group size.

Sixteen's A Crowd

Randomization may try to diversify the Housesystem, but often-homogenous blocking groups canprevent the realization of this goal, masters say.

Hanson says the status quo is not perfect.

"[The current system] has not led to thecross-section model," Hanson says, citing thelarge number of athletes who entered WinthropHouse this fall. "WeA-5MASTERCrimson File Photo