House Life Faces Uncertainty

It has been called the jewel of Harvard College, an arrangement of inter-generational residential living that has been a facet of the undergraduate experience since the 1930s. The College’s House system—a set of 12 residences spanning Dewolfe to Garden Streets, and potentially the Charles River into neighboring Allston one day—are a hub of both academic and social activity. Tenured faculty sit at the helm, supported by contingents of alumni and affiliates from varying generations and trades, all intermingling with a few hundred undergraduates.

First translated into reality by President Abbott Lawrence Lowell, class of 1877, successive administrations have scrutinized the House system over the years to keep with Harvard’s aim of “forging a link between learning and living,” according to the Office of Residential Life’s Web site.

Most recently, the Report on Harvard House Renewal, released by College Dean Evelynn M. Hammonds this April 1, attempted to reassess the realization of this goal as the University prepares to embark on a $1 billion renovation effort—the first such large-scale review of House life since 1969, says Associate Dean of Residential Life Suzy M. Nelson.

The renewal process, announced slightly over a year ago, is set to occur in three stages: the first, culminating in the Renewal Report, highlighted areas of House life requiring improvement; the second, now underway, will develop renovation blueprints; and the third will encompass construction—currently slated to begin in 2012.

In the report, the College administration seeks “to explore the unique role and purpose of House life in the educational experience of Harvard and to revitalize the House system for the 21st century,” maintaining that, “in these challenging economic times, we are committed to this essential undertaking.”

But this long-standing tradition has not been immune from the unprecedented fiscal crisis that is projected to cost Harvard nearly a third of its $36.9-billion endowment.

And as University-wide cuts reach the Houses—from the elimination of hot breakfast to the possible trimming of shuttle service—House administrators, students, and generations of residents are questioning whether their Houses can endure cost-cutting measures without undercutting Lowell’s vision.

A VISION OF HOUSE LIFE

In dozens of interviews last week, students and House staff noted the conflict between spending significant funds to improve House infrastructure and complying with the mandated scaling-back in House expenditures.

Over the last year, some of the people involved in the Committee on House Life synthesized research obtained from focus groups, five House Program Planning Subcommittees, and student surveys. Chief among their findings, Nelson says, was that the Houses needed to be modernized—and not merely with cosmetic improvements like fresh coats of paint, but rather with extensive interior renovations like replacing internal plumbing.

Still, a balance between House renovation and House history needed to be reached, Nelson says. To that end, the report concludes that preserving the “historic mystique of a Harvard building” must be coupled with the more practical concerns gleaned from the CHL’s focus groups and surveys, in which students asked for basic improvements such as better lighting and heating, increased privacy, and greater sound-proofing.

For Cullen McAlpine ’11, renovations could not come soon enough. Though the sophomore says that he and his roommates enjoyed a spacious Dunster room last year, friends of his lived in an “inefficient, uncomfortable” room that featured two small singles with a walk-through bathroom.

“I’m really looking forward to the renovations, especially in Dunster,” Alpine says, referencing overcrowding that often characterizes residences. “Hopefully, they’ll redesign some of these walk-throughs.”

Even though the College has stabilized the undergraduate population size by freezing transfer admissions, a growing number of students over the last century has rendered current House capacity insufficient.

To combat shortfalls in space and size, the Renewal Report recommends maximizing the number of private bedrooms, reducing the prevalence of suites housing more than five students, and eliminating large group hallway bathrooms.

But some of the renovations are primarily intended to ensure student safety—not just comfort. Currently, several Houses are undergoing the installation of sprinkler systems.

And as illustrated by the sprawling nature of the 112-page report and its $1 billion price tag, the House renewal initiative is ambitious both in its scope and its bottom line.

ONE STEP FORWARD, TWO STEPS BACK?

According to Nelson, the release of the report coincided with stage two of House Renewal: design and development, a phase that entails drafting architectural blueprints for the ideal upperclassman House.

The College administration says that construction is slated to begin in 2012—less than three years from now, and already one year behind the initial 2011 estimate.

But in recent weeks, some administrators—including Nelson and Faculty of Arts and Sciences Dean Michael D. Smith—have qualified the 2012 projected start date by calling it “the earliest possible” deadline.

Standing in the way of a 2012 start is the question of where to house students during construction. As of last week, over a year after the need for interim housing became apparent, Nelson said no swing space facilities had been identified.

Amid a deepening recession, however, prioritizing House expansion has been viewed skeptically—especially in light of recent cuts in the Houses.

“Plans for expansion have been overshadowed,” says Otto F. Coontz, assistant to the Adams House resident dean, adding that students have instead been primarily concerned with pending cuts that they say “tamper” with the current House system.

These reductions have been the product of planning for increasingly large budget cuts in the Houses. Earlier this semester, the College administration asked House Masters to model a one-percent budget cut as an exercise. But as the fiscal climate worsened, the exercise became more of a reality.

By April, the administration was asking House Masters to submit budgets to accommodate a 25-percent reduction, which led both House administrators and students to voice concern over slashing a quarter of an already sparse budget.

“We were not willing to accept the consequences of a 25-percent cut,” says Adams House Master John G. “Sean” Palfrey ’67, who added that his most recent budget submission modeled a cut between 15 and 20 percent. “Just as the Dean has categories that absolutely cannot be touched, we are in the same situation. But the Houses have much less flexibility.”

THE COST OF CUTS

Over the course of last semester, the Houses have felt the impact of budget trimming in five main areas: the Senior Common Room, House libraries, shuttle services, hot breakfast, and House staff.

Some of these cuts—particularly those to the SCR—were initiated at the House level.

While the Renewal Report acknowledges that the SCR presently falls short of its goal of fostering “meaningful” interactions among faculty, students, and alumni, and recommends bolstering the presence of SCR members in House communities, House Masters targeted SCR expenses for budget reductions.

Both Eliot House Master Lino Pertile and Lowell House Master Diana L. Eck say they plan to significantly cut back the meal plan granted to SCR members, who include alumni and faculty. Still, both Masters say that the move could decrease SCR members’ visibility further among students.

“It makes a difference to have a House community that is not just students,” Eck says, referencing the inter-generational nature of the SCR. “Go to BU or someplace like that if you just want to live and be around students.”

Other cuts came as top-down proposals from the College administration. House administrators and students alike forcefully opposed one such proposal: the College’s attempt, made in mid-May, to scale back shuttle service.

Incoming Pforzheimer House Master Nicholas A. Christakis says he was “unhappy” with potentially terminating 1:30 a.m. shuttle service to the Quad next year from Sunday to Wednesday; this year, shuttle service ended at 3:45 a.m.

“This type of cut specifically disadvantages the Quad,” says Christakis, who along with his wife will inherit a budget finalized by his predecessors, James J. and Sue McCarthy. He adds that he was concerned that Quad residents will also have to contend with the closure of the Quad library next year, another cut announced in early May.

Library cutbacks are not confined to the Quad. Already in some Houses, students who are not eligible for federal work-study benefits have been left without jobs in House libraries. In an effort to comply with mandated budget cuts, several House Masters have decided to limit library hours and staff.

According to Kirkland House librarian Allison K. Rone ’06, the House can no longer afford to accommodate as many undergraduates who would have to be paid out of already-stretched House funds.

The College administration’s decision to eliminate hot breakfast on weekdays in the Houses also met with student opposition. Over House e-mail lists, students protested the adverse health effects of not eating breakfast, especially for athletes who rely on calorie-filled morning meals.

But the Renewal Report had already foreshadowed the possibility of reducing the scope of early-morning meal offerings.

“Maintaining 12 upperclass dining halls is financially difficult,” the report reads, and adds that the College should “explore the possibility of having breakfast in only one dining hall per neighborhood.”

But the administration went beyond the report’s initial recommendations. Noting that about a third of undergraduates eat breakfast and the University would save $900,000 as a result of the cut, the administration decided to keep only Annenberg open for hot breakfast during weekdays next year.

Brianne M. Farrar ’10, a resident of Lowell House, says she was “personally mad” about the reductions to hot breakfast because she usually looks “forward to eating eggs every morning.”

AN ‘INTEGRAL’ CATEGORY

According to House Masters, one of the most “integral” areas of House life is their staff. Recently, College administrators have flirted with the idea of scaling back key positions in the Houses. The Crimson reported this proposal in early May, but House officials say that the administration has been eyeing such cuts for much of this semester.

The Renewal Report cites the centrality of one such position: the assistant to the resident dean. These individuals are charged with several administrative tasks, including maintaining an average of 400 student files for current undergraduate residents and sending letters of recommendation for students applying to graduate, medical, or law schools.

In fact, the report suggests “upgrading” this position, expanding the assistant’s responsibilities to include advising undergraduates, and easing some of the administrative duties of House Masters.

“In all,” the report reads, “any changes should assume that the strength of any House staffing model is built on a team effort.”

But nearly a month after the report’s release, the College administration proposed consolidating the resident dean’s assistant position, having one assistant assume administrative responsibilities for two to three Houses.

Both House Masters and students vocally opposed the potential move. During meetings with faculty and College administrators, Eck emphasized the fact that while House staff has not expanded in the last decade, 230 additional administrative staff across FAS have been added to the University payroll.

“This goes against the notion of a House. It would force [the assistants’] loyalties to be divided,” Pertile says. “With no loyalties, it is almost like saying that a machine would be sufficient.”

Students—who rely on resident deans’ assistants for “anything from recommendations to fellowships to jobs,” says Adams resident John M. Mistovic ’09—echoed this sentiment.

“I think that Otto is vital to the functioning of our House,” Mistovic says. “It would fall apart...I couldn’t imagine Adams House without him.”

Altogether, students and some House administrators say that certain cost-cutting measures—whether initiated by College or by House officials—will change the nature of House life. Moreover, they add that these changes seemingly undercut the rhetoric of both the Renewal Report and the foundation of House life as articulated by President Lowell more than seven decades ago.

FUTURE IN FLUX

As of last Thursday, when House Masters met for the final time this academic year, budgets for the coming year had still not been finalized. Eck expressed doubt that House budgets would be formally approved before the July 1 start date of the next fiscal year.

Since budgets are still uncertain, most Masters remained hopeful that changes to House life would be minimal and said they would oppose implementing a 25-percent budget cut if that were to become a formal mandate. Losing a quarter of House funds would “drastically affect daily life in practice,” Pertile says.

“Certainly if we have to cut one open house out of four, or one study break, or one major House dinner out of four, I think the quality of life for students would no doubt be impoverished,” he adds.

Whether or not some of the more intangible elements of House life—including House spirit and culture—would be compromised in the process remains to be seen, says incoming Winthrop House Master Ronald S. Sullivan, who was selected in February as the first black faculty member to hold the post.

“I hope that House spirit won’t be impacted, as the Houses play such a central role in the University,” he says. “But I’m confident that we can maintain the House’s ‘espirit de corps.’”

But many students were less optimistic, expressing concern about ramifications of budget cuts, which they say were drafted without student consultation.

“I think in a way the University is behaving like a corporation, figuring out where it can make cuts,” says Kevin J. Davies ’10, a Quincy House resident. “But that’s not how it should be acting. The University has a responsibility to include students in the decisions it’s making, keeping in mind that we are paying tuition and we make Harvard what it is... The University seems like it doesn’t care about students, which is a shame.”

With next year’s budget still in flux and the University’s financial situation bleak, administrators say they have been put in a tough situation—having to cut back on House life while simultaneously promising to bolster it.

“We might have some short-term needs based on our fiscal climate that we absolutely have to address,” Nelson says. “But we have long-term commitments to the Houses.”

—Staff writer Ahmed N. Mabruk can be reached at amabruk@fas.harvard.edu.

—Staff writer Bita M. Assad can be reached at bassad@fas.harvard.edu.