Lottery Fever Hits Yardlings

Five years ago, just the breath of the word provoked debate in dining halls and first-year rooming groups.

But as first-years scratch their heads over what four houses to list in next week's housing lottery, the once-heated debate over making housing assignments totally random has become all but nonexistent.

In February 1989, Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57 announced his plan to totally randomize each of Harvard's twelve upperclass houses.

But the plan met with angry opposition from students. Within two weeks of the dean's announcement, M. Scott Meyer '92, then a first-year, gathered signatures from about 1,000 students protesting Jewett's proposal. And masters from Eliot, Winthrop, Lowell and Adams Houses all refused to have their houses randomized.

"People wanted the same way they lived," Meyer, who now works for a New York trust company, saidyesterday. "We felt we were not involved in thedecision to change."

Under pressure, students and Jewett, who stillsays he has a "personal preference" forrandomization, found a compromise that was thenbilled as a "three-year experiment."

Five years later, that compromise--the currentsystem of nonordered choice--looks more and moreto be like a permanent solution.

Many students and administrators say thesystem, which asks first-years to name four housechoices without ranking them, is the fairest wayof doling out space in the houses.

"The lottery is blind to any quotas," saysCatherine M. Millett, housing officer for theCollege. "[This system] is the only way to getfull use of Harvard's services."

"My only hope is that every house iswelcoming," she adds.

That does not mean that randomization iswithout its supporters. But voices in support ofthe change have become few and far between.

When non-ordered choice was first implementedin February 1989, "the hope was that this half-waycompromise would solve the problem and that wemight move to full randomization," says QuincyHouse Master Michael Shinagel.

That hasn't happened, Shinagel acknowledges,but he hopes the house masters will discuss theissue again this spring.

Such discussions, however, could beshort-lived. Millett says randomization does notappear to be a common topic around her office.

"In my role as housing officer, I haven't heardanything about full randomization," she says.

Jewett himself appears to have grown tired ofthe randomization debate. He did not return phonecalls to his office seeking comment for thisstory.

Millett says she thinks most people aresatisfied with the current system because itfacilitates diversity while still insuring thatstudents can room with their friends.

And most students agree with Millett, but fordifferent reasons.

"People feel strongly about choice and alsodiversity," says Melissa Garza '94, who served asvice president of the Undergraduate Council lastfall. "That is why so many people like the currentsystem."

In fact, the editors of both the liberalPerspective and the conservativeSalient say they approve of the system.

The Salient editor, Curtis E. Gannon'94, says he likes the system because it rids thecampus of negative house images, like that ofAdams.

"Its goal is to alleviate the bad stereotypicalimages of the houses," Gannon says.

Gannon adds, however, that he suspects thesystem makes liberals happy because it "appeals toHarvard's radical egalitarianism."

Joshua A. Feltman '95, president ofPerspective, says he likes the compromisebecause randomization would have been adestructive policy.

"The backlash to total randomization would bemore destructive than good," Feltman says.

Feltman says he likes the change becausenon-ordered choice is ridding houses like Eliotand Mather of their elitist or anti-intellectualattitudes.

Feltman, a Mather House resident, cautions thatthe changes are slow. And there are some housestereotypes, he adds, that he doesn't want to seedie.

"Adams House is rebellious, creative,intellectual--these are virtues which Harvardendorses," he says

Under pressure, students and Jewett, who stillsays he has a "personal preference" forrandomization, found a compromise that was thenbilled as a "three-year experiment."

Five years later, that compromise--the currentsystem of nonordered choice--looks more and moreto be like a permanent solution.

Many students and administrators say thesystem, which asks first-years to name four housechoices without ranking them, is the fairest wayof doling out space in the houses.

"The lottery is blind to any quotas," saysCatherine M. Millett, housing officer for theCollege. "[This system] is the only way to getfull use of Harvard's services."

"My only hope is that every house iswelcoming," she adds.

That does not mean that randomization iswithout its supporters. But voices in support ofthe change have become few and far between.

When non-ordered choice was first implementedin February 1989, "the hope was that this half-waycompromise would solve the problem and that wemight move to full randomization," says QuincyHouse Master Michael Shinagel.

That hasn't happened, Shinagel acknowledges,but he hopes the house masters will discuss theissue again this spring.

Such discussions, however, could beshort-lived. Millett says randomization does notappear to be a common topic around her office.

"In my role as housing officer, I haven't heardanything about full randomization," she says.

Jewett himself appears to have grown tired ofthe randomization debate. He did not return phonecalls to his office seeking comment for thisstory.

Millett says she thinks most people aresatisfied with the current system because itfacilitates diversity while still insuring thatstudents can room with their friends.

And most students agree with Millett, but fordifferent reasons.

"People feel strongly about choice and alsodiversity," says Melissa Garza '94, who served asvice president of the Undergraduate Council lastfall. "That is why so many people like the currentsystem."

In fact, the editors of both the liberalPerspective and the conservativeSalient say they approve of the system.

The Salient editor, Curtis E. Gannon'94, says he likes the system because it rids thecampus of negative house images, like that ofAdams.

"Its goal is to alleviate the bad stereotypicalimages of the houses," Gannon says.

Gannon adds, however, that he suspects thesystem makes liberals happy because it "appeals toHarvard's radical egalitarianism."

Joshua A. Feltman '95, president ofPerspective, says he likes the compromisebecause randomization would have been adestructive policy.

"The backlash to total randomization would bemore destructive than good," Feltman says.

Feltman says he likes the change becausenon-ordered choice is ridding houses like Eliotand Mather of their elitist or anti-intellectualattitudes.

Feltman, a Mather House resident, cautions thatthe changes are slow. And there are some housestereotypes, he adds, that he doesn't want to seedie.

"Adams House is rebellious, creative,intellectual--these are virtues which Harvardendorses," he says