Masters to Review Ban on Pamphlet Distribution

House Masters will reconsider their banning door-to-door distribution of leaflets adopted March 7 to "protect students' privacy for the pursuit of knowledge," the threatened to impede the activities of graduate political organizations.

The Harvard-Radcliffe Liberal Union yesterday protested to Elliott Perkins '23, Master of House, that the ban would prevent publication of a letter-writing campaign in the Houses . The Young Democratic Club of Harvard and Radcliffe and the Harvard Young Republicans Club planned the campaign in conjunction with the HRLU in support of the Mansfield bill.

for the Masters, Perkins agreed to the campaign if the approval of four other could be obtained.

H. Finlay '25, Master of Eliot House; Pappenheimer, Jr., Master of Dunster House, and Charles H Taylor, Master of Kirkland House, and one Master who wished to remain unnamed agreed to join Perkins in this action.

The prohibition dates to 1953, when the Masters banned the Student Employment Office (predecessor of the HSA) from room solicitations after the first two weeks of each term. The nuisance of a steady succession of hear mug, banner, and magazine salesman knocking on doors of House rooms led the Masters to restrict such sales to the dining hall news stands, then is operation.

To some Masters it was unclear whether this ban applied to leaflets slipped under the door, although they often allowed such distribution to take place. But when a senior Soc Rel concentrator asked permission last month to conduct a poll in the Houses to gather information for his thesis. Perkins asked the other Masters to include such non-commercial solicitations in the ban, in addition to political "throw-aways."

Some Masters, however, still think the ban applies only to commercial advertising and solicitation, and none could remember how the "protection of the right to privacy" applies to slipping leaflets under doors. The only rationale, according to Perkins, was to prevent the accumulation of waste paper as the result of innumerable handouts.

The HRLU protested that "this reason is not sufficient justification for preventing political organizations from communicating their views in the most effective manner." And the alternative proposal of the Masters--allowing student groups to hand out leaflets in the dining halls--is not a justifiable substitute, the HRLU claimed, since "students are disposed to eat, not read, in the dining halls."

In addition, the HRLU argued that from the Masters' point of view, this alternative is "self-defeating: handing out material in the dining hall is a greater invasion of privacy than door-to-door distribution."

Adding further confusion, the new prohibition evidently does not apply to publications such as the Harvard Student Calendar, Cambridge 38, and the CRIMSON. In addition, the Masters of Quincy and Eliot Houses were prepared to continue to allow the distribution of House newspapers and notices door-to-door.

At their next meeting the Masters will probably agree to allow political and cultural "throwaways" to be distributed in the Houses, according to Finley. But they will continue to forbid commercial advertising and any solicitation which calls students to the door. Information tables will still be permitted at the entrances of the dining halls.

As in the past, however, there will be no strict College ruling. Each Master has complete control over his House, and organizations will be required to obtain his permission for their projects. The decisions reached at the Masters' meetings are informal attempts to coordinate House policies, but do not bind the Masters to any course of action.

Meanwhile, the HRLU, YDCHR, and HYRC are proceeding with their plans to campaign for the passage of the Mansfield-Dirksen civil rights bill, including door-to-door distributions and dining room tables.

The Harvard-Radcliffe Liberal Union yesterday protested to Elliott Perkins '23, Master of House, that the ban would prevent publication of a letter-writing campaign in the Houses . The Young Democratic Club of Harvard and Radcliffe and the Harvard Young Republicans Club planned the campaign in conjunction with the HRLU in support of the Mansfield bill.

for the Masters, Perkins agreed to the campaign if the approval of four other could be obtained.

H. Finlay '25, Master of Eliot House; Pappenheimer, Jr., Master of Dunster House, and Charles H Taylor, Master of Kirkland House, and one Master who wished to remain unnamed agreed to join Perkins in this action.

The prohibition dates to 1953, when the Masters banned the Student Employment Office (predecessor of the HSA) from room solicitations after the first two weeks of each term. The nuisance of a steady succession of hear mug, banner, and magazine salesman knocking on doors of House rooms led the Masters to restrict such sales to the dining hall news stands, then is operation.

To some Masters it was unclear whether this ban applied to leaflets slipped under the door, although they often allowed such distribution to take place. But when a senior Soc Rel concentrator asked permission last month to conduct a poll in the Houses to gather information for his thesis. Perkins asked the other Masters to include such non-commercial solicitations in the ban, in addition to political "throw-aways."

Some Masters, however, still think the ban applies only to commercial advertising and solicitation, and none could remember how the "protection of the right to privacy" applies to slipping leaflets under doors. The only rationale, according to Perkins, was to prevent the accumulation of waste paper as the result of innumerable handouts.

The HRLU protested that "this reason is not sufficient justification for preventing political organizations from communicating their views in the most effective manner." And the alternative proposal of the Masters--allowing student groups to hand out leaflets in the dining halls--is not a justifiable substitute, the HRLU claimed, since "students are disposed to eat, not read, in the dining halls."

In addition, the HRLU argued that from the Masters' point of view, this alternative is "self-defeating: handing out material in the dining hall is a greater invasion of privacy than door-to-door distribution."

Adding further confusion, the new prohibition evidently does not apply to publications such as the Harvard Student Calendar, Cambridge 38, and the CRIMSON. In addition, the Masters of Quincy and Eliot Houses were prepared to continue to allow the distribution of House newspapers and notices door-to-door.

At their next meeting the Masters will probably agree to allow political and cultural "throwaways" to be distributed in the Houses, according to Finley. But they will continue to forbid commercial advertising and any solicitation which calls students to the door. Information tables will still be permitted at the entrances of the dining halls.

As in the past, however, there will be no strict College ruling. Each Master has complete control over his House, and organizations will be required to obtain his permission for their projects. The decisions reached at the Masters' meetings are informal attempts to coordinate House policies, but do not bind the Masters to any course of action.

Meanwhile, the HRLU, YDCHR, and HYRC are proceeding with their plans to campaign for the passage of the Mansfield-Dirksen civil rights bill, including door-to-door distributions and dining room tables.

for the Masters, Perkins agreed to the campaign if the approval of four other could be obtained.

H. Finlay '25, Master of Eliot House; Pappenheimer, Jr., Master of Dunster House, and Charles H Taylor, Master of Kirkland House, and one Master who wished to remain unnamed agreed to join Perkins in this action.

The prohibition dates to 1953, when the Masters banned the Student Employment Office (predecessor of the HSA) from room solicitations after the first two weeks of each term. The nuisance of a steady succession of hear mug, banner, and magazine salesman knocking on doors of House rooms led the Masters to restrict such sales to the dining hall news stands, then is operation.

To some Masters it was unclear whether this ban applied to leaflets slipped under the door, although they often allowed such distribution to take place. But when a senior Soc Rel concentrator asked permission last month to conduct a poll in the Houses to gather information for his thesis. Perkins asked the other Masters to include such non-commercial solicitations in the ban, in addition to political "throw-aways."

Some Masters, however, still think the ban applies only to commercial advertising and solicitation, and none could remember how the "protection of the right to privacy" applies to slipping leaflets under doors. The only rationale, according to Perkins, was to prevent the accumulation of waste paper as the result of innumerable handouts.

The HRLU protested that "this reason is not sufficient justification for preventing political organizations from communicating their views in the most effective manner." And the alternative proposal of the Masters--allowing student groups to hand out leaflets in the dining halls--is not a justifiable substitute, the HRLU claimed, since "students are disposed to eat, not read, in the dining halls."

In addition, the HRLU argued that from the Masters' point of view, this alternative is "self-defeating: handing out material in the dining hall is a greater invasion of privacy than door-to-door distribution."

Adding further confusion, the new prohibition evidently does not apply to publications such as the Harvard Student Calendar, Cambridge 38, and the CRIMSON. In addition, the Masters of Quincy and Eliot Houses were prepared to continue to allow the distribution of House newspapers and notices door-to-door.

At their next meeting the Masters will probably agree to allow political and cultural "throwaways" to be distributed in the Houses, according to Finley. But they will continue to forbid commercial advertising and any solicitation which calls students to the door. Information tables will still be permitted at the entrances of the dining halls.

As in the past, however, there will be no strict College ruling. Each Master has complete control over his House, and organizations will be required to obtain his permission for their projects. The decisions reached at the Masters' meetings are informal attempts to coordinate House policies, but do not bind the Masters to any course of action.

Meanwhile, the HRLU, YDCHR, and HYRC are proceeding with their plans to campaign for the passage of the Mansfield-Dirksen civil rights bill, including door-to-door distributions and dining room tables.

H. Finlay '25, Master of Eliot House; Pappenheimer, Jr., Master of Dunster House, and Charles H Taylor, Master of Kirkland House, and one Master who wished to remain unnamed agreed to join Perkins in this action.

The prohibition dates to 1953, when the Masters banned the Student Employment Office (predecessor of the HSA) from room solicitations after the first two weeks of each term. The nuisance of a steady succession of hear mug, banner, and magazine salesman knocking on doors of House rooms led the Masters to restrict such sales to the dining hall news stands, then is operation.

To some Masters it was unclear whether this ban applied to leaflets slipped under the door, although they often allowed such distribution to take place. But when a senior Soc Rel concentrator asked permission last month to conduct a poll in the Houses to gather information for his thesis. Perkins asked the other Masters to include such non-commercial solicitations in the ban, in addition to political "throw-aways."

Some Masters, however, still think the ban applies only to commercial advertising and solicitation, and none could remember how the "protection of the right to privacy" applies to slipping leaflets under doors. The only rationale, according to Perkins, was to prevent the accumulation of waste paper as the result of innumerable handouts.

The HRLU protested that "this reason is not sufficient justification for preventing political organizations from communicating their views in the most effective manner." And the alternative proposal of the Masters--allowing student groups to hand out leaflets in the dining halls--is not a justifiable substitute, the HRLU claimed, since "students are disposed to eat, not read, in the dining halls."

In addition, the HRLU argued that from the Masters' point of view, this alternative is "self-defeating: handing out material in the dining hall is a greater invasion of privacy than door-to-door distribution."

Adding further confusion, the new prohibition evidently does not apply to publications such as the Harvard Student Calendar, Cambridge 38, and the CRIMSON. In addition, the Masters of Quincy and Eliot Houses were prepared to continue to allow the distribution of House newspapers and notices door-to-door.

At their next meeting the Masters will probably agree to allow political and cultural "throwaways" to be distributed in the Houses, according to Finley. But they will continue to forbid commercial advertising and any solicitation which calls students to the door. Information tables will still be permitted at the entrances of the dining halls.

As in the past, however, there will be no strict College ruling. Each Master has complete control over his House, and organizations will be required to obtain his permission for their projects. The decisions reached at the Masters' meetings are informal attempts to coordinate House policies, but do not bind the Masters to any course of action.

Meanwhile, the HRLU, YDCHR, and HYRC are proceeding with their plans to campaign for the passage of the Mansfield-Dirksen civil rights bill, including door-to-door distributions and dining room tables.

The prohibition dates to 1953, when the Masters banned the Student Employment Office (predecessor of the HSA) from room solicitations after the first two weeks of each term. The nuisance of a steady succession of hear mug, banner, and magazine salesman knocking on doors of House rooms led the Masters to restrict such sales to the dining hall news stands, then is operation.

To some Masters it was unclear whether this ban applied to leaflets slipped under the door, although they often allowed such distribution to take place. But when a senior Soc Rel concentrator asked permission last month to conduct a poll in the Houses to gather information for his thesis. Perkins asked the other Masters to include such non-commercial solicitations in the ban, in addition to political "throw-aways."

Some Masters, however, still think the ban applies only to commercial advertising and solicitation, and none could remember how the "protection of the right to privacy" applies to slipping leaflets under doors. The only rationale, according to Perkins, was to prevent the accumulation of waste paper as the result of innumerable handouts.

The HRLU protested that "this reason is not sufficient justification for preventing political organizations from communicating their views in the most effective manner." And the alternative proposal of the Masters--allowing student groups to hand out leaflets in the dining halls--is not a justifiable substitute, the HRLU claimed, since "students are disposed to eat, not read, in the dining halls."

In addition, the HRLU argued that from the Masters' point of view, this alternative is "self-defeating: handing out material in the dining hall is a greater invasion of privacy than door-to-door distribution."

Adding further confusion, the new prohibition evidently does not apply to publications such as the Harvard Student Calendar, Cambridge 38, and the CRIMSON. In addition, the Masters of Quincy and Eliot Houses were prepared to continue to allow the distribution of House newspapers and notices door-to-door.

At their next meeting the Masters will probably agree to allow political and cultural "throwaways" to be distributed in the Houses, according to Finley. But they will continue to forbid commercial advertising and any solicitation which calls students to the door. Information tables will still be permitted at the entrances of the dining halls.

As in the past, however, there will be no strict College ruling. Each Master has complete control over his House, and organizations will be required to obtain his permission for their projects. The decisions reached at the Masters' meetings are informal attempts to coordinate House policies, but do not bind the Masters to any course of action.

Meanwhile, the HRLU, YDCHR, and HYRC are proceeding with their plans to campaign for the passage of the Mansfield-Dirksen civil rights bill, including door-to-door distributions and dining room tables.