The Master Makeover

From 1995 until last year, the pages of The Crimson bemoaned the College’s decision to randomize the House system. The announcement predated my arrival at this fine institution, but I can sympathize with the students’ concerns about it. I believe, however, that randomization works, if not because our Houses now better represent microcosms of the College as a whole, then because the College as a result of randomization has placed such competent, devoted Faculty members at the helm of House life.

The role of the House Master has always been an arduous one, but it became even more challenging—and formidable—with 1995’s randomization of the College’s residential system. Until then, Masters answered the same questions of responsibility, but at least they could expect to preside over the well-being of a constant, predictable group of students—be they the athletes of Kirkland House, the pre-meds of Quincy House or the tree-hugging, bongo-thumping environmentalists of Dunster House. Community spirit, at some base level, was inherent to House life by nature of common association.

Now, however, first-years can no longer list their housing preferences, so they resign themselves to praying to the River Gods as their only defense against being Quadded. House Committees undergo random annual leadership turnover. And thus, House Masters alone—not decades-old tradition or individual House community—stand as constant pillars that uphold House spirit.

In the absence of a unifying set of characteristics that sets the tone of a House, students take note when their Master not only recognizes everyone in the community by first name, but also participates in House activities such as the intramural program and the Stein Club. Whereas before randomization one’s housemates defined their House community, today that community is defined by the House Masters. As such, the selection of House Masters has become an ever more important process.

To be honest, I take issue with many of the policies and selection processes that go on at the College. Undergraduate concerns such as advising and the Administrative Board often seem to be at the bottom of the administration's priority list. However, in the case of selecting House Masters, the College—led by its fearless dean, Harry R. Lewis ’68—has done a commendable job.

The incessant buzz of approval and my own experience is enough to convince me that the Master search committees have worked assiduously to place enthusiastic, self-giving members of the Faculty—with a “genuine, natural and personal” interest in undergraduates—in charge of the Houses. Lewis has devoted much effort to researching lists candidates and assessing their potential for leadership. He has consciously flagged senior members of the faculty for these positions because of their ability to voice undergraduate interests more broadly and, presumably, for their ability to do so without fear of falling out of favor with the administration to the detriment of their academic careers. And he has worked along with in-house committees comprised of Senior Common Room members, tutors and students so that he may make informed and thoughtful recommendations to the President and the Dean of the Faculty, both of whom make the final decision. (Explain to me, again, why this process would not have worked in the University’s Presidential Search?)

And yet there remains one issue that mars the otherwise spectacular selections made since 1995: There is an embarrassing lack of diversity among the House Masters, and I am sure that many undergraduates would appreciate a more concerted effort to select masters more representative of the College today than the College of 50 years ago. The face of the undergraduates has certainly morphed in the past few decades, and it is only appropriate that the House Masters reflect this transformation as well. Of course, this issue stems from a much larger one about the racial composition of the Faculty as a whole. As this column goes to print, the College has already announced one new set of non-minority Masters: Professor Robert P. Kirshner ’70 and his wife, writer-director Jayne Loader. As we await the names of the new Dunster House Masters, we can only hope that the only existing minority House Masters, Karel and Hetty Liem, are replaced by another couple that reflects the diversity of the undergraduate student body.

When randomization began in 1995, students feared the worst: not only did they resent being stripped of the ability to choose a House with which they identified, but they also genuinely feared a loss of precious House community. The extent to which these fears have been assuaged is due largely to the leadership of existing Masters and the College’s ability to replenish departing ones with Faculty members who are willing to invest their time and effort to creating a vibrant House life.

Undergraduates are quick to criticize administrative actions and often forget to commend the College when it’s on the right track. In the case of selecting House Masters, we should salute its efforts.

Jordana R. Lewis ’02 is a history and literature concentrator in Eliot House. Her column appears on alternate Thursdays.