Now What?

The Masters' response to the push for keycard access has been profoundly disheartening. In a meeting with students and administrators Feb. 15, three of the four House Masters in attendance--representing Eliot, Mather and Pforzheimer--lined up against the student body's persistent request for 24-hour universal keycard access to all Houses.

The Undergraduate Council has represented students admirably in its persistent advocacy for this cause and should be commended for its tremendous efforts. Quincy House master Michael A. Shinagel should be also be commended for keeping his House open to all Harvard undergraduates. But other masters' refusal to open their Houses reflects a fundamental disconnect from the realities of their students' lives.

The most prominent justification posited by the three masters for denying universal access was a fear that it would compromise students' safety. Yet the Harvard University Police Department (HUPD) has denied that universal access would pose any serious danger to students--if anything, universal access would help keep students safe by allowing them to find refuge in any House if threatened late at night. Students have no reason to fear the ability of other students to enter their Houses, and the Masters should not substitute their own paranoia for the judgment of HUPD.

More concerning are reports by some who attended the meeting that the masters were especially concerned with student vandalism. Were there any record of such destructive pranks, perhaps this concern might be reasonable--but the last record of any kind of attacks by students from one House on another was the famously innocuous stand-off between Adams and Pforzheimer, where only a gong and a "Pf" changed hands. In short, safety provides no compelling reason to block universal access.

The Masters opposed to access have also invoked the amorphous "House spirit" as a justification for their arbitrary decisions. It is true that House spirit has, with only a few exceptions, waned tremendously since randomization. Yet as important as House spirit may be, it cannot be used to justify everything. We're all Harvard undergraduates; our friends--thanks to randomization--are just as likely to be in one House as another; and all of us would like for our friends to be able to visit without arbitrary barriers.

What's more, given some Masters' anemic notions of how to promote community, the loss of House spirit is entirely predictable. Eliot Master Lino Pertile suggested Feb. 15 that spirit could be safeguarded only by having a time--specifically, between 1 and 8 a.m.--when residents of other Houses are barred.

Locking other students out of a House on weekday nights when most are sleeping or studying does nothing to promote community. And on weekend party nights, locking students out of their friends' dorms does little but annoy students and compromise their safety, forcing them to wait outside on the street for their friends to open the door.

Perhaps the policies would be changed if each House Committee voiced its support, demonstrating that the students of the Houses are in favor of open access. But so far, almost all have already done so--and the Masters have given little indication that they would listen.

The reasons for universal access have been restated over and over again. What is concerning, however, is that the arguments advanced against it--no matter how silly--do not seem to be losing ground. The Masters are Harvard professors, after all, and one would expect them to apply to their decisions some degree of rational scrutiny. But a policy that needlessly inconveniences, frustrates and endangers students shows no signs of going away.