Keep Interhouse Restrictions in Place

Letters to the Editors

To the editors:

In response to Erin M. Kane’s recent op-ed on interhouse restrictions, I wonder if the Quincy House resident has ever tried living in one of these interhouse restricted houses and learned first-hand what it’s like to find it impossible to get a seat in one’s own dining hall ( Op-ed, “Segregated Dining,” April 17).

Nobody really wants to eat in Quincy House. That’s why there are no restrictions. The idea that “if Houses lifted their restrictions, diners would most likely be evenly distributed” is ridiculous to anyone who has spent any significant amount of time eating at a non-Quincy dining hall. Interhouse restrictions are the result of the naturally unequal distribution of dining hall traffic caused by geography and quality of cuisine, not (as Kane seems to think) simply out of isolationist community building. If Kane were willing to eat at non-peak times (before 5:30 or after 6:30 pm) or with a resident of the house, she would find Adams House quite welcoming.

Now what about Annenberg? Why are they so special? Upperclass students pay for their operating costs too. Shouldn’t we open Annenberg up to all undergraduates? It’s right next to the yard, it would be so convenient for lunch. Do these snobby freshmen think they’re better than everyone else just because they were born earlier than us?

Kyle A. Gilman ’02

April 17, 2003

The writer is a teaching fellow in the department of Visual and Environmental Studies and a former Adams House resident.