Dunster's BGLTQ Environment

In the wake of a Crimson news story, controversy has surfaced regarding the environment in Dunster House for students who identify as BGLTQ. At a late January meeting with college administrators, one resident tutor raised concerns about this issue, and students, faculty members, and others have since confirmed the widespread perception that the House is less welcoming to BGLTQ students than it is to others. The reasons for this perception are still largely unclear and will likely prove difficult to define; the suggestion of a hostile environment, however, is cause for further investigation on the part of the College.

As the College considers its response to the issues in Dunster, members of the community must be careful not to make unfounded accusations about the root causes of the House’s problems. The main points of contention have been over Dunster’s lack of resident tutors who identify as BGLTQ for the past two years and the House Masters’ contested decision not to renew the contract of one tutor who often handled BGLTQ issues.

Both are serious issues. Either the House or the College should have addressed the first much sooner, and the second deserves a fuller explanation. But the idea of “a hostile environment” is hard to pin down, appears to extend beyond these specific concerns, and may have less obvious causes. Until we know more, speculation about those causes is unhelpful.

Furthermore, recently announced efforts in Dunster appear promising. Next year, the House will receive two resident tutors who identify as BGLTQ. Also, House Master Roger Porter said that Dunster will give a “generous budget” to its “specialty tutor activities” next year. (In previous years, the House’s BGLTQ programming has lacked its own budget.) These steps, though overdue, are an indication that the House has realized that it must address its reputation.

That being said, the College should continue to look into the exact causes of Dunster’s perceived unfriendliness to BGLTQ students. After one prominent event in 2004, emails over Dunster’s open list alleged that the House was “exceptionally homophobic.” One student recounted, “There was a sense that you were closeted, but only in the House.” If students feel that way in what is supposed to be their home away from home at Harvard, then both the House and the College must take action. Environments that foster negative feelings are destructive of the openness and inclusivity essential to Harvard’s mission.

The College should continue to probe the matter and address what factors might be causing this problem. A 2011 report on Harvard BGLTQ student life noted students’ suggestions “that there be at least one BGLTQ person on staff in each house.” With that in mind, College administrators should ensure that no house goes without a resident tutor who identifies as BGLTQ for as long as Dunster has. More broadly, the College should take a greater interest when less tangible but still serious problems like the environment for BGLTQ students in Dunster continue for a significant stretch of time.

Each House should be a community whose members feel comfortable being who they are. When even one member is not, that is a problem the College and the wider community need to address.