Ignorant Professors

To the Editors of The Crimson:

We are interested in an apparent contradiction in the report of the Task Force on College Life, which you summarized (1/4/77). This group supposedly favors diversity; at least, it supports investigation of "'theme' Houses, focusing on language, art, or a special area of concentration," providing "an alternative living arrangement for those who might prefer it" (1.4-7). On the other hand, it suggests "no-choice pre-freshman assignment to the Houses" (1.4-9), which, barring tremendous numbers of inter-House transfers, would seem to necessitate "the creation of more uniformity within the Housing system," which the task force also recommends (1.4-8). In support of this last, each new Housing proposal deals with the freshmen as a whole, rather than retaining the current system at the Quad. The report termed four class Houses "the ideal but least feasible alternative" (1.4-8a), and keeping our freshmen scarcely requires "construction and rearrangement of the campus." Why is it that uniformity outweighs all other factors? Would the Yard freshmen complain about missing "the mix of classes (which) would be very positive" (1.4-8s)? Perhaps the fear is that upperclassmen complain about having freshmen underfoot. But sophomores wanting to move do this because it is a 'legitimate' reason in Harvard's eyes, whereas irrational prejudice and a dislike of walking are not. It is certainly not a dis upting factor in and of itself; in North House the two non-freshman buildings do not differ significantly from the others.

For the past four years we have watched the administration homogenizing the 'Cliffe into Harvard; this would seem another example of that long, painful process of eliminating those desired "alternative living arrangements". But is it necessary? To be sure, the character of the House here has changed, though it is neither noisier nor quieter, more passive nor more active, and the greater variety of personality types have already set us on a par with the rest of the College. However, this continued attempt to make us totally indistinguishable (and hence indiscernable) from Adams House, for instance, is making large, happy, quiet communities within the House become smaller, paranoid, and angry. They have felt the university uprooting them entirely, as though they were crabgrass which might contaminate the straight and true Harvard Man; they have seen the absurdity of this picture, and have tried reason, to no avail. The administration is continuing to destroy the remaining shreds of unity, to merge us into the faceless mask that produces the new standard Harvard-Radcliffe person. But if Harvard has its way, certainly these people, and probably the College, will be the poorer for it. Christopher M. Holt '76-1