TOTALLY RANDOM

The era of choice has officially ended. Three years after the College told the class of 1999 they would have no choice as to where they would spend their upperclass years, the Houses are now fully randomized.

But now that they are, the College is waffling on the promise it made three years ago to review randomization when this moment arrived.

Meetings have been held, surveys have been discussed, and data will surely be compiled. But with both Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68 and Dean of Students Archie C. Epps III saying they do not expect any major policy changes in the coming year, prospects for a revised house assignment policy any time soon seem dim.

"I'm not anticipating going back to square one," says Lewis, who chairs the Committee on House Life, which would investigate any such policy change.

Epps agrees, arguing that randomization must be given a chance to prove itself as a system that promotes greater integration.

"I don't expect any change in policy on randomization--that would be my best guess," Epps says. "We have just achieved full randomization. There is no record yet."

But for the 26 minority tutors who signed an open letter last spring criticizing randomization for breaking apart communities of minority students, time is of the essence.

This year's first-years have never known a Harvard that was not fully randomized. And sophomores, juniors and seniors have never belonged to a House community that they and their neighbors all chose.

So the question remains: Will the long-promised review of randomization ever materialize, or will the call for change die with the graduation of the only members of the campus community who remember the way it used to be?

Behind Closed Doors

The first tentative steps toward a re-evaluation of randomization began this summer when Epps invited tutors and masters to discuss the issues that were brought up in the minority tutors' four-page letter issued last May.

Epps estimates about five masters and eighttutors attended the three July meetings, inaddition to Thomas A. Dingman '67, associate deanof the House system.

Lewis, who is ultimately responsible for anychanges in residential life, did not attend themeetings, although a representative of his staffdid.

Still, Lewis said the meetings were "helpful,"and Epps said everyone who attended left themeetings with a greater understanding of thecomplexity of the issues surrounding any Houseassignment policy.

But for many of the tutors at the meetings, themeetings should have been an opportunity todiscuss possibilities for concrete policy changesin addition to re-explaining the concerns they hadalready expressed.

"I felt as if we were talking in circles arounda complex of deeply emotional issues without evergetting too specific," wrote Shirley Thompson, aresident tutor in Adams House, and StephenMarshall, a resident tutor in Currier House, in ane-mail message.

Both Thompson and Marshall were among thetutors who signed the letter that prompted themeetings.

"As tutors of color, we are wary of any policy,including randomization, which implies that acommunity of minority students gathering togetheris inherently insular, and thus, problematic," theletter argued.

Nicky Sheats, a resident scholar in EliotHouse, who as a resident tutor last spring helpedorganize the open critique of randomization, saysthe meetings should be a catalyst for studentdiscussions on randomization.

"They didn't agree to any concrete changes,"Sheats says. "But I think that if they were theimpetus for campus-wide discussions, thensomething will have been accomplished."

By the end of the meetings, Epps says the groupdecided to compile a survey on randomization anddistribute it to students within the Houses.

All parties involved in the meetings agreedthat an accurate assessment of student sentimentis the first step toward any re-evaluation of theHouse assignment policy begun in 1995 by then-Deanof the College Fred L. Jewett '57.

Survey Says

A survey may sound like the perfect way togauge student sentiment toward randomization, butthe process of actually compiling questions andcollecting answers--at least in the eyes ofUniversity Hall administrators--is anything butsimple.

Dingman says there has been some disagreementamong administrators, masters and tutors over whenit would be best to conduct a survey of studentsentiment toward randomization and House life.

"In some Houses--not all--there was sometension created when people who ended up in Housesthey very much wanted to be a part of saw thesystem of choice end," Dingman says. "Some ofthose people were not particularly welcoming tojuniors and sophomores."

"There seemed to be a feeling of, `You don'tseem to share or be aware of what makes this aunique possibility,"' Dingman adds.

Considering that these experiences might stillbe fresh in the minds of today's upperclassstudents, Dingman feels that it would be best towait before distributing a survey aboutrandomization.

Such a waiting period might help ensure thatstudent feedback on House assignment policy is notinfluenced by any negative experiences they mighthave had with an unrandomized class.

No administrator would pledge to a particulartime for a survey, saying only that it would notbe appropriate until students have a chance toexperience a fully randomized House.

But by waiting to survey students, Sheatsargues, the College will be surveying a group ofstudents who never had the opportunity to choosetheir House or never saw firsthand the benefits ofan ordered choice system of House selection.

"You need discussion," Sheats says. "Ifstudents aren't saying anything, it could be thatthey're not terribly unsatisfied. They'resurviving. I'm saying they could maybe thriveunder a different system. We won't know that if wewait."

And while the timing of the survey is onequestion that needs to be determined, the type ofquestions that will be asked is yet anotherunaddressed dilemma.

Epps says a House-wide survey would askstudents whether they feel randomization hasachieved integration of different communities ofthe College within the Houses. Sheats says anysurvey should ask students whether there is a needfor "supportive communities of color" within theHouses.

"Here's the question that should be asked:Before randomization, you had small communities ofcolor in the Quad and Quincy House," Sheats says."What was the effect of randomization of on thesecommunities? Has there been an effect? Was it fairto break up these communities?"

But until the survey moves from the drawingboard to implementation, a review of randomizationremains in limbo.

And no University Hall administratorinterviewed by The Crimson had any idea when thatwould happen.

Something to Talk About

In the meantime, tutors and administratorsalike insist that no change in the system can takeplace without the active support of students.

Thompson explains that she and the other tutorswho signed the randomization critique felt theywere speaking for students, but that "it wasdifficult to argue persuasively without hardevidence or undergraduate input."

"We think there needs to be discussion. Wediscussed our feelings, and now it is time for thestudents," Sheats says. "I would hope it didn'tdie, because students feel nothing will change andthat's why they don't speak out."

And the Houses, members of the tutorial staffsay, are willing to listen.

"It has to be student-initiated," says GeneMcAfee, the senior tutor in Lowell House. "I don'thear a whole lot of unrest. It may be there, butwe have no access to it unless it becomes moreovert."

After all, Sheats says, ultimately he and theother tutors can only speak for themselves.

"I have faith that students will come up with asystem that includes all segments of thepopulation, [one which] everyone finds appealing,"Sheats says. "Maybe I'm being naive, but I thinkit could happen."CrimsonAmelia E. Morrow

Epps estimates about five masters and eighttutors attended the three July meetings, inaddition to Thomas A. Dingman '67, associate deanof the House system.

Lewis, who is ultimately responsible for anychanges in residential life, did not attend themeetings, although a representative of his staffdid.

Still, Lewis said the meetings were "helpful,"and Epps said everyone who attended left themeetings with a greater understanding of thecomplexity of the issues surrounding any Houseassignment policy.

But for many of the tutors at the meetings, themeetings should have been an opportunity todiscuss possibilities for concrete policy changesin addition to re-explaining the concerns they hadalready expressed.

"I felt as if we were talking in circles arounda complex of deeply emotional issues without evergetting too specific," wrote Shirley Thompson, aresident tutor in Adams House, and StephenMarshall, a resident tutor in Currier House, in ane-mail message.

Both Thompson and Marshall were among thetutors who signed the letter that prompted themeetings.

"As tutors of color, we are wary of any policy,including randomization, which implies that acommunity of minority students gathering togetheris inherently insular, and thus, problematic," theletter argued.

Nicky Sheats, a resident scholar in EliotHouse, who as a resident tutor last spring helpedorganize the open critique of randomization, saysthe meetings should be a catalyst for studentdiscussions on randomization.

"They didn't agree to any concrete changes,"Sheats says. "But I think that if they were theimpetus for campus-wide discussions, thensomething will have been accomplished."

By the end of the meetings, Epps says the groupdecided to compile a survey on randomization anddistribute it to students within the Houses.

All parties involved in the meetings agreedthat an accurate assessment of student sentimentis the first step toward any re-evaluation of theHouse assignment policy begun in 1995 by then-Deanof the College Fred L. Jewett '57.

Survey Says

A survey may sound like the perfect way togauge student sentiment toward randomization, butthe process of actually compiling questions andcollecting answers--at least in the eyes ofUniversity Hall administrators--is anything butsimple.

Dingman says there has been some disagreementamong administrators, masters and tutors over whenit would be best to conduct a survey of studentsentiment toward randomization and House life.

"In some Houses--not all--there was sometension created when people who ended up in Housesthey very much wanted to be a part of saw thesystem of choice end," Dingman says. "Some ofthose people were not particularly welcoming tojuniors and sophomores."

"There seemed to be a feeling of, `You don'tseem to share or be aware of what makes this aunique possibility,"' Dingman adds.

Considering that these experiences might stillbe fresh in the minds of today's upperclassstudents, Dingman feels that it would be best towait before distributing a survey aboutrandomization.

Such a waiting period might help ensure thatstudent feedback on House assignment policy is notinfluenced by any negative experiences they mighthave had with an unrandomized class.

No administrator would pledge to a particulartime for a survey, saying only that it would notbe appropriate until students have a chance toexperience a fully randomized House.

But by waiting to survey students, Sheatsargues, the College will be surveying a group ofstudents who never had the opportunity to choosetheir House or never saw firsthand the benefits ofan ordered choice system of House selection.

"You need discussion," Sheats says. "Ifstudents aren't saying anything, it could be thatthey're not terribly unsatisfied. They'resurviving. I'm saying they could maybe thriveunder a different system. We won't know that if wewait."

And while the timing of the survey is onequestion that needs to be determined, the type ofquestions that will be asked is yet anotherunaddressed dilemma.

Epps says a House-wide survey would askstudents whether they feel randomization hasachieved integration of different communities ofthe College within the Houses. Sheats says anysurvey should ask students whether there is a needfor "supportive communities of color" within theHouses.

"Here's the question that should be asked:Before randomization, you had small communities ofcolor in the Quad and Quincy House," Sheats says."What was the effect of randomization of on thesecommunities? Has there been an effect? Was it fairto break up these communities?"

But until the survey moves from the drawingboard to implementation, a review of randomizationremains in limbo.

And no University Hall administratorinterviewed by The Crimson had any idea when thatwould happen.

Something to Talk About

In the meantime, tutors and administratorsalike insist that no change in the system can takeplace without the active support of students.

Thompson explains that she and the other tutorswho signed the randomization critique felt theywere speaking for students, but that "it wasdifficult to argue persuasively without hardevidence or undergraduate input."

"We think there needs to be discussion. Wediscussed our feelings, and now it is time for thestudents," Sheats says. "I would hope it didn'tdie, because students feel nothing will change andthat's why they don't speak out."

And the Houses, members of the tutorial staffsay, are willing to listen.

"It has to be student-initiated," says GeneMcAfee, the senior tutor in Lowell House. "I don'thear a whole lot of unrest. It may be there, butwe have no access to it unless it becomes moreovert."

After all, Sheats says, ultimately he and theother tutors can only speak for themselves.

"I have faith that students will come up with asystem that includes all segments of thepopulation, [one which] everyone finds appealing,"Sheats says. "Maybe I'm being naive, but I thinkit could happen."CrimsonAmelia E. Morrow