Randomization: The Luck of the Draw

"If the young men entering college were allowed to choose their Houses, those coming from the same school, or from schools of the same type and from similar early surroundings, would naturally select the same House; and thus there would be a segregation among the Houses on the basis of origin--certainly a most unfortunate one," wrote President A. Lawrence Lowell, Class of 1877, in his annual report in 1928.

Nearly 70 years later, then Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57 justified his decision to randomize housing for first-years on the same grounds.

Implemented this year, randomization sparked student opposition as soon as it was announced. Undergraduates denounced the plan, saying that it would simply result in conflict and the destruction of house character, rather than broadening students' social experiences.

While the University has always been concerned with integration in one form or another, Lowell's vision of each house as a microcosm of the College where students of all backgrounds will interact has not been fulfilled until this year.

How effective randomization will be in achieving this goal, however, remains to be seen.

The House Rules

When Lowell became president in 1909, wealthier students chose to live in private dormitories along the so-called "Gold Coast" of Mount Auburn Street. Rooms cost around $300 for a single and $500 for a double, while College housing cost less than $100, essentially dividing the student population along socioeconomic lines.

To encourage exchange between students from different backgrounds, Lowell made all first-years move to on-campus housing in 1912, driving the "Gold Coast" dorms out of business.

In 1930, Lowell sought further to ease class tensions by adopting a housing system similar to that at the English universities of Oxford and Cambridge.

From 1912 to 1931 the College bought up real estate around the Square and along the river and constructed dormitories that would later constitute parts of Winthrop, Leverett and Kirkland Houses.

In the fall of 1928, Edward S. Harkness, a graduate of Yale, offered to give more than $13 million toward the construction of Lowell's longdesired residential houses. Harkness had first approached his own alma mater in New Haven, but did not receive a suitably enthusiastic response until he approached Lowell.

Using the funds provided by Harkness, the College built Dunster, Eliot and Lowell Houses in 1930, and created Adams, Kirkland, Leverett and Winthrop from existing dorms in 1931.

But Lowell's original dream was never fully realized, because administrators have been tinkering with the house system ever since.

Prior to 1971, masters picked future residents of their respective houses through an application process. A year later, however, the College moved to a system in which students ranked all 12 houses in order of preference, and in 1977, the number of ranked Houses was reduced to four. Starting in 1990, a non-ordered choice system was implemented under which the four houses could not be ranked. That system remained unchanged until last year.

Lewis: Playing His Hand

The cliques of which Lowell spoke were again addressed in the 1994 Report on the Structure of Harvard College, co-authored by future Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68 and Nancy L. Maull, administrative dean of the Faculty.

"We endorse Lowell's notion that one of the goals of the Houses is to 'throw together' students of different origins and interests," they wrote. "We do not find persuasive some of the arguments put forward in opposition to heterogeneity, such as the need for the Houses to be a place for retreat from the stresses of College life, this supposedly requiring students [to] be able to restrict their social contacts to persons similar to themselves."

But many students did not find the report's arguments convincing.

Some of the most contentious debate has dealt with the concerns of minority students.

Where the Quad Houses have traditionally attracted large numbers of minority students--last year, almost 50 percent of Pforzheimer House residents were students of color--randomization will scatter minorities among the larger white population.

Many students said randomization would remove community support, especially because the College lacks a minority student center.

"It's impossible because this college does so little to support students who are marginal," said Alex H. Cho '96, a member of the Asian American Association and resident of Adams House. "You have no support commensurate to peer institutions like Princeton and Yale."

"It's about having safe spaces where you're not a spectacle," he said.

Minority students tend to clump together, Cho said, because there are "things that with other students of color you don't need to explain."

Students suggest that self-segregation is a sign of deeper institutional problems, and that randomization only permits the administration to ignore larger issues.

But others said that student opposition to randomization is not as great as has been reported.

Despite polls by both the Undergraduate Council and the Harvard Independent showing that more than three-fourths of the student body opposed randomization, Harold Chernoff '89, a resident tutor in Leverett House, said students were actually not as concerned about the change as the polls indicated.

"The polls are yes or no," Chernoff explained, adding that this skews responses toward the negative when, in reality, students are more ambivalent.

Chernoff's theory is supported by Rebecca Kiley '98, who said, "I have really mixed reactions to [randomization]. It's one in a long series of the administration taking student power away. But I also have, with reservations, support."

Chernoff said he thinks that students will like randomization as they become used to it.

"It gives you the chance to meet people from all parts of the country, and that's what this college should be all about," he said.

Many agreed that students will quickly become acclimated and forget their initial hesitations.

"From what I've heard, most students end up liking the house they're in no matter what," said Travis Hendon '98, who said he does understand why students are protesting.

"I think it's a worthy cause, because it is taking away choice," Hendon said. "After randomization, who knows what will come next?"

Students who consider themselves the victims of randomization--those who wound up in architecturally-challenged houses like Currier or Mather, for example--have said they have come to accept it.

When first-year Matthew J. Aliberti's blocking group ended up in the Quad, "most of them were pretty upset," he said. "I don't mind. Once you realize that you had no choice, I accepted it easier."

Ironically, many students cited the Quad as evidence for the future success of randomization.

Retiring Master of Pforzheimer House J. Woodland "Woody" Hastings agreed.

"We had been randomized for 15 years, and found it wonderful. Being randomized helps the community a lot," Hastings said, attributing some of the student unhappiness about randomization to natural resistance to change.

Shuffling the Deck

Now that the immediate furor over randomization has died down, what remains to be resolved? Many students have not given up the fight, and even supporters of the new housing system concede there are significant problems. Lewis has agreed to review the process three years from now, when all the houses will be completely randomized.

Gender controls will be instituted next year, after some major imbalances were revealed in the distribution of rising sophomores this year.

Fifty-five percent of the Class of 1999 is male, but in Pforzheimer, the percentage of male rising sophomores rose to an astounding 70 percent. Eliot and Kirkland also experienced similar problems, as 65 percent and 61 percent, respectively, of incoming students are male. Adams House had the opposite problem, as 59 percent of its incoming sophomores are female.

"Men interested in various fields of thought should be thrown together with a view of promoting a broad and humane culture," Lowell wrote in 1928. "So far as subjects of concentration, pecuniary means, and residence in different parts of the country are concerned, each House should be a cross-section of the College."

And for the Committee on the Structure of Harvard College, Lowell's plan is just as valid for today's intellectual aims as for those of 60 years ago.

Lowell's goal will be achieved in the next three years. The consequences of his vision will not be known before then.

Cho cautioned: "It would be nice, but people have to be realistic--they can't use that high-minded idealism to ignore other problems."