A Quarter Gone

Budget cuts are a dime a dozen these days and a basic fact of life during a recession, though we do hope the cuts end up saving us more than just a few dimes. Spending cuts are often unfortunate, especially at Harvard—a place accustomed to abundance. Yet these cuts are also probably highly prudent and necessary, though it is difficult to be sure, since the university’s true financial picture remains cloudy. The decision made earlier this semester to reduce annual FAS departmental budgets and annual House budgets by 15 percent was a difficult concession, but likely sensible in the current environment. The recent announcement, however, that each of Harvard’s 12 Houses will be required to cut spending by an additional 10 percent—25 percent in full—is especially regrettable, considering the vital role that House life should play in the Harvard undergraduate experience.

Of course, a student’s House is more than just a building in which she sleeps and eats. The Houses are vibrant intellectual and social communities, and it is concerning to see that they will now have fewer resources with which to enrich a student’s Harvard experience. A 25-percent drop in House spending will have a negative impact on both quality of life and on advising resources within the House—cuts that will go well beyond the loss of luxuries like free refreshments provided at masters’ open houses and study breaks. House masters have said that tutor meal plans may have to be reduced and that some staff positions may have to be rethought entirely.

Ironically, these additional housing budget cuts come on the heels of the recent Report on Harvard House Renewal, which specifically called for an increased tutor presence in each house and restructured Senior Common Rooms. The report was released to the community on April 1 in an e-mail from Dean of the College Evelynn M. Hammonds. In a preface to the report, she writes that Harvard’s goal to “revitalize the House system” would still be pursued despite “challenging economic times.” But, surely, these planned renovations and improvements will now have to wait. In the meantime, the university should ensure that the organizational heart of College residential life still lies within the Houses, rather than in a larger, more centralized administrative bureaucracy. To do so will require prioritizing administrative staff salaries over other current luxuries offered by houses.

In the midst of such a dire financial situation, it is understandable that cuts need to be made, and a 25-percent cut is not likely to disappear anytime soon. In dealing with these cuts, the Houses should do what they can to ensure that the personal infrastructure of the House—specifically the continued presence of tutors and important House administrators—survive such a drastic budget reduction. Extras such as food for House events should be eliminated long before actual academic and administrative positions that play such a central role in the Harvard experience start to be considered expendable.