No Sacrificing Choice

DEAN of the College L. Fred Jewett's plan for 25 percent randomization was scuttled by house masters who heeded student opposition to the proposal. Now Jewett hopes to take matters into his own hands, eliminating the masters from the decision process.

Jewett hopes to present the class of 1993 with a fait accompli: 50 percent randomization. Not only does the staff position endorse this misguided proposal, but it condones the dean's decision to ignore the members of the Harvard community directly affected by the plan.

Partial randomization offers token diversity at the expense of student choice. The sacrifice of some freshmen guinea pigs in a lily-livered attempt to pay lip service to diversity would only serve to alienate those unlucky frosh.

The concept of randomization itself violates the principle of student autonomy. Students have valid reasons for their house preferences--beyond wanting to live with people with similar interests. For instance, someone might want to live in Dunster House because of its excellent music facilities. Others may choose Cabot House because it is home to the famed student night club--Cookin'.

If Harvard truly believes its students should be treated like responsible adults, it should respect these preferences. As long as anyone is equally free to reside in any house, every attempt should be made to accommodate student choice. The present policy of free choice is excellent.