Eight is Enough

How random is random enough? Last week, in an effort to better realize the intent of randomized housing Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68 announced that blocking group sizes would be slashed in half from 16 to 8. Lewis expressed his hope that the change would lead to more social mixing and help better integrate students into house life.

For years this staff has been bitterly opposed to randomization.

We mourned the anticipated loss of House character, and we bucked at the restriction on our freedom of choice. This latest announcement from the administration represents yet another paternalistic attempt at social engineering. Yet, we must admit, somewhat grudgingly, that it isn't such a bad idea.

The time has come to lay down our gloves and let the randomization fight rest. We must acknowledge that our worst nightmares have not come true--many of the Houses have retained elements of their old cultures, and the fabric of undergraduate life has not frayed into disarray. Extracurricular groups have picked up much of the slack in the realm of community formation, and while Harvard College is certainly not the same as it was pre-randomization, we cannot honestly contend that it has been measurably harmed.

So long as we accept the goals of randomization, we must also support this latest move to reduce blocking group size. Sixteen-person blocking groups were simply too large. Rather than selecting a small group of potential roommates to enter the lottery with, many undergraduates sought to enter their new Houses with an entire social circle already intact. This represented a great obstacle to social mixing and has inhibited the development of a new, post-randomization House life. The ability to block with all of your friends certainly makes one feel safer and more secure, but the comfort of the individual student is not always the only consideration--increased community and diversity within the Houses is also important.

Smaller blocking groups will force undergraduates to reconsider the purpose of the blocking group and reinvigorate House communities. Students will branch out within their Houses and make the effort to establish new circles of acquaintances. Some may be frustrated at having to do some of the work of their first year all over again, but in the end, we are confident that all will find it rewarding, and more importantly, that we will collectively be better off.

In addition to the improvements we expect within the Houses, we anticipate a healthier atmosphere outside them. Not living in the same physical structure is no obstacle to friendship, and we are sure that as relationships survive across Houses, strong inter-house networks will form, improving the overall campus dynamic. Universal keycard access would help these networks thrive while also ensuring students' safety.

Some may ask, why can't we decide how many people we want to block with ourselves? The answer is simple: If they are not compelled otherwise, students will too often chose the easier option of a larger group. And that's not what's best for undergraduate life.

We are just as averse to paternalism as we have always been, and this announcement disturbed us when we first heard it. However, after considering the reasoning behind the move, we have to acknowledge that this is the right decision.

DISSENT: Respect Student Choice

The cut in blocking group size inappropriately decreases students' control over how they want to live in a system which has already deprived students of much choice.

The change was precipitated not by a visible decline in the quality of House life but by the increasing prevalence of large blocking groups--a trend that provides strong evidence that students prefer, when given the choice, to block with a large number of people. Normally, such preferences should be respected. The only reason to break up blocking groups would be if they had adverse effects on House community. Yet such effects have not been demonstrated so convincingly that the administration should disregard the preferences students have already expressed.

There are good reasons to believe that 16-person blocking groups are not so damaging to House community. If students wanted to meet new people and felt that a 16-person blocking group would preclude them from doing so, they would not fill the blocking group; students have just as much interest in House community as masters or administrators.

Furthermore, numbers don't determine social interactions: People who want to be insular can be just as insular in a group of eight or 16, and those who want to meet new friends in their houses won't be prevented by a few extra blockmates. Large blocking groups might even improve House community and facilitate new friendships since students are more likely to attend House events with a group of friends.

There is also good reason to think that eight is a bad size for a blocking group. There are suites of more than eight people in many houses. Some students do in fact have close friendship groups of more than eight people, and the lower limit would make the blocking process even more difficult for first-years. Such a low limit also makes it more difficult for mixed-gender blocking groups, which must already divide up into rooming groups.

At some point--perhaps a blocking group of one?--individual suffering would clearly outweigh whatever speculative benefits are achieved by forcing students to find new friends. Are blocking groups of 10 or 12 such great obstructions to House community that they must be disbanded, regardless of the resulting inconveniences to individual students? Could eight actually be too many?

What is missing from this policy is a serious discussion of House community and what it means. Does a series of well-attended House events indicate "community"? Does it require that the entire House represent one social circle? Can extracurricular activities provide community, or must it come through the houses? Can a House where students prefer a few close friends to many acquaintances have community? And on what basis does the College pick and choose which visions of community are to be encouraged and which are to be proscribed?

If anything, this move is an admission of failure on the College to provide an attractive House community post-randomization and a belated attempt to remedy the error by decree. If students want to make new friends after freshman year, they can, regardless of blocking group size. Eliminating choice is not the answer.

--Skylar H. Byrd '00,

Stephen E. Sachs '02,

Richard J. Wegener '01