Lewis Declines To Reconsider Blocking Groups

With the deadline for choosing blocking groups fast approaching, more than half of all first-years petitioned Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68 to increase the maximum blocking group size back to 16 students last week.

The Committee on House Life (COHL) decided last year to reduce the maximum blocking group size from 16 to eight students, beginning with the Class of 2003.

Last month, Alex M. Rampell '03, a member of the Undergraduate Council, initiated a petition recommending the reversal of this decision. First-year council members tabled during dinner on Feb. 17 and 18 in Annenberg Dining Hall, convincing 877 students to sign the petition, which was presented to Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68 in a meeting last Thursday morning.

Lewis, however, rejected the petition, maintaining his position that the decision will not be changed for at least several years.

Rampell defended his petition's aims, saying that COHL "was completely unrepresentative of the student body. Most students were against [the decision]."

Lewis wrote in an e-mail message that COHL "did vote that the blocking group size should be reduced substantially; while the vote was not unanimous, it did not split along faculty-student lines."

The committee is made up of several House Masters, three student representatives and is chaired by Lewis.

Rampell also challenged the timing of the decision, saying that COHL should have waited until the fall, when first-years would have been able to participate in discussions.

"Nobody from our class was on this committee," he said. "Why didn't they wait for our class to come in to be able to represent themselves?"

Lewis wrote, though, that such a decision process would create significant instabilities in Harvard policy.

"If that were the correct way of doing things, then by the same logic it would seem that we ought to reconsider every Harvard rule annually with input from the students they affect," Lewis wrote.

Lewis added that students who had been at Harvard for a longer time would have a better perspective on the tradeoffs of such a decision.

"Petitions are never a good way to deal with issues that have to do with limiting choices or expanding requirements--as individuals we would always vote to give ourselves more choices and fewer requirements," Lewis wrote.

"That's why the process for understanding such choices is through reasoned discussion in student-faculty committees, not petitions," Lewis added.

The arguments for and against smaller maximum blocking-group sizes are varied. Quincy House Master Michael Shinagel wrote in an e-mail message that, after randomization, "each House should be a 'microcosm' of the College in terms of diversity."

"I believe that the goals of randomization will be fulfilled better with the new blocking group size," he added.

Council member M. Kate Richey '03, however, said that a smaller blocking group size would cause students to have less interaction with the rest of their Houses.

"With eight we stick even closer to these eight and do not branch out to as many people," she said.

Rampell and Richey said that a smaller size will also limit co-educational blocking, claiming that most of the first-year blocking groups being formed are single-sex. Students must decide on their blocking groups by March 15.

Another argument for smaller blocking groups is to prevent large single-interest groups--such as football players--from blocking together, Rampell said.

Rampell called this argument "preposterous," however, saying that few sports have 16 first-years each season. He said a small blocking group size would increase the number of blocking groups whose members are from a single team.

But according to Shinagel, small, homogeneous blocking groups are not a problem.

"A blocking group of eight is large enough to accommodate friends and people with special interests," he wrote.

Proponents of smaller blocking group size say they can better guarantee diversity by mixing smaller, uniform groups together.

"The Masters found that larger blocking groups tended not to become integrated fully into the Houses, and they skewed the representations of certain groups among the Houses," Shinagel wrote.

Martin S. Bell '03, who also signed the petition, said, "[The decision] is an inconvenience for a lot of people. It seemed to get a lot of people more upset than it was worth."