WE ARE SEVEN

Dean Hanford has "awaited with interest" the report of the Student Council on the first-ranking bogey-man of University Hall, undergraduate housing. And, with a more vital and personal interest, so have the homeless three hundred, who now lurk in the crepuscular gloom of Little or Dudley and subsist on the weird stews of Harvard Square chefs. The Council has spoken, but like the oracles of the ancient Greeks, it has nothing new to say.

The principal explanation for this is the impossibility of adding anything new to the discussion. The problem has been mulled and mooted in so many annual reports, special undergraduate committee reports, and Crimson editorials that every possible solution has long since been suggested and resuggested. The Council report nevertheless remains an interesting and informative document for a variety of reasons. It stands as the most exhaustive survey of the situation to date; it changes the emphasis placed on the various solutions; and in certain respects it emphatically disagrees with Dean Hanford's conclusions in his latest annual report.

Like every one else, the Council comes to the not very startling conclusion that the only permanent answer is an eighth House. This is actually wishful thinking, because for all practical purposes a new House must be relegated to the if and when category, dependent upon the appearance of a fairy godfather. In the stop-gap measures designed to meet the needs of the present there is more to interest the homeless three hundred, whose hearts palpitate not one whit faster at the thought of a new House ten years from now.

Most intriguing of all temporary remedies is the admittance, without qualification, of all eligible Juniors and Seniors. This would necessitate the exclusion of more Sophomores, but the second year would merely be a stormy strait with smooth sailing assured beyond. A further remedy is the oft-bandied-about House Associate Plan. Finally there is the athletic organization of out-house groups and their inclusion in the intramural set-up. The Council recommends all of these, envisioning them as a complementary whole which will raise the general standard of life of non-House students.

These are all excellent suggestions but University Hall and the House Masters have constituted themselves as a force to maintain the status quo, claiming that any benefits gained by such measures are more than offset by losses. It is high time that they are forcefully disillusioned. The Council has helped do this by spiking the argument against the Associate Plan that it would overcrowd facilities. More generally, the House Masters must realize that their most potent contention against both the Junior-Senior Admission and the Associate Plans, that these will destroy House spirit, is woefully invalid. House spirit is ephemeral and amorphous to the point of not deserving consideration when greater human values are at stake.

The University must end the period of procrastination and take positive action on the Council's three recommendations.