Collective Responsibility

The recent theft of an Oriental rug from the Straus Hall common room has led to a debate of the merits of collective responsibility. Unable to find the thief, the Freshman Dean's Office (FDO) has decided to divide the cost of replacing the rug among all Straus residents. The FDO made a similar decision a few weeks earlier, charging all Wigglesworth residents for damage done to the common room. While the FDO may claim that collective responsibility fosters a sense of community among the residents, communities formed under such circumstances rapidly degenerate into factions. The students against the Faculty. Us against them.

The Undergraduate Council proposed paying for the cost of the oriental rug but is still considering its options. Even if the council absorbs the cost of the rug, it will merely be robbing Peter to pay Paul. Whether the Straus residents or the council pay for the rug, many students will pay for the transgression of an unknown perpetrator.

The anonymous pair of thief and vandal might have come from within the ranks. If the perpetrators are assumed to be residents of Straus and Wigglesworth, the FDO's policy has the deleterious effect of making student police their neighbors. Rather than supporting a sense of community, collective responsibility necessitates vigilance and suspicion. Indeed the bills mailed to Wigglesworth residents told the unlucky recipients that they could avoid the charge if they were to become informants..

Moreover, it is very likely that someone from outside the halls did the damage. First years know the Straus common room hosts a panoply of activities--from study card collection to plays-that cater to the entire Yard and to upperclass students. Wigglesworth's common room boasts a pool table that attracted hustlers form other halls. If the residents of a hall come to understand that they will be accountable for damage done by outsiders, halls may quickly become insular. Should residents of a particular hall start to be distrustful of other Yard dwellers, the spirit and purpose of the Yard will suffer.

Some might dismiss the idea that such unsavory things will arise when each student is only assessed a minuscule portion of the bill. Perversely, the fact that the bill is so small exacerbates the insult. With parents working to pay for an already exorbitant tuition, having a charge of $6.50 tacked on their child's term bill with the terse explanation "damage done to common area" rubs salt in a raw wound.

Throughout this debate, the FDO has put forth the company line: by signing the housing contract, students agree to pay for damage done to common areas. This legalism avoids the basic question of fairness. The FDO could make the housing contract Patently unfair and everyone would still sign it. Rather than read the fine print to examine personal liability, Harvard students focus only on the big picture: sign this housing contract or immerse yourself in the Cambridge rental market. Contracts signed under such duress are of dubious legitimacy.

The FDO should not abdicate its responsibility. We are not here to babysit furniture. When the FDO forces students to supervise their neighbors, it absolves itself of its own regulatory role.

EDITORIAL POLICY: Staff editorials represent the official positions of The Harvard Crimson. Dissents, letters, illustrations and signed commentary reflect the opinions of their authors and do not necessarily represent the views of The Crimson.