There's No Place Like Home

As students began to riot at college campuses across the country in 1969, Harvard officials believed it couldn't happen here.

The source of this confidence was the close student faculty contact fostered by--the House system, officials say.

Professors and administrators argued that living and eating with a tenured professor and a battery of associates, fellows, and tutors would decrease student alienation.

The House system, however, later proved overrated as Harvard students rioted and took over administrative buildings.

Now in its 53rd year, the House system continues to struggle with its vaguely defined mandate and numerous roles in the education of Harvard students.

On the one hand, the Houses strive to recreate the intellectual climate of their Oxford-Cambridge parents. On the other hand, Harvard's commitment to the system--in dollars, personnel, and independence--has not kept pace with high expectations.

Observers say that the House system has never really had a chance to settle in, President A. Lawrence Lowell retired in 1933, leaving the system an orphan at age three. World War II and the unrest of the late `60s and the inclusion of women have prevented traditions from forming.

The role of the Houses continues to be worked out. Most recently, the two-year-old student-faculty Committee on Housing has addressed the difficult questions of the Houses scope and importance.

"The House system is an unnatural act that has never truly worked because its implications have never been thought out," says the Rev. Peter J. Games, Pismmer Professor of Christian Morals.

But in the meantime, it is the House masters who bear the responsibility for carrying out the Houses' vague mandate.

Lessened Autonomy

Historically the masters' autonomy has been gradually limited. As late as the 1950s, powerful Masters like John H. Finley at Eliot House and Eliot Perkins at Lowell reserved the right to choose the Houses' students and tutors. Masters then held lifetime posts.

But in the '60s, the masters' duties began to be usurped by other offices. A computer now places students, and the academic departments select tutors. University Hall now takes care of many maintenance and funding matters.

And President Bok has apparently set out to limit each master to a five-year term. Currently, a master's appointment is understood to last five years, with the option of yearly extensions.

At the same time, masters began to shy away from their increased responsibilities. In the '60s, they had to deal both with student protests and with student pressure for help in getting into graduate schools, says Dean of the College John B. Fox Jr. "Masters began to buckle under the double lung," he recalls.

Nowadays, at least a Harvard, "People do not apply to be masters. Professors do not look for administrative responsibility," Fox adds.

House Seminars

There are examples, though, of a counter-trend. For example, recent pressure for House academic activities has revived the issue of masters' autonomy.

The Undergraduate Council proposed this year that each House or group of Houses offer sections for large Core courses. Some masters, though, say they would rather offer unique House seminars.

John F. Dowling, professor of Biology and Master of Leverett House, explains that a House seminar is an expression of a House's individual character and allows students to meet the members of the House's Senior Common Room--a hierarchy of faculty, emeriti, and tutors appointed by the Master.

In fact, in the wake of the stripping of power since the '60s, the Senior Common Room is considered by many masters to be the area where they have the greatest effect on the House environment.

But Gomes says that with a five-year term, the master can never gain enough autonomy to run the House properly. "The effect of the five-year rule for masters if it is a rule--has been chilling. Five years barely allows a master to undo whatever damage he inherited," the Lowell House Senior Common Room member says.

Working within these constraints, Gomes adds, masters have lost touch with their affiliates and come increasingly to serve as virtual caterers and hotel managers. Mary Lee Bossert, co-master of Lowell House, says that she entertains in the masters' residence at least three times a week, and the same is true to a lesser extent at other Houses.

Alan Heimert, Cabot Professor of American Literature and the last of the lifetime masters, has been at Eliot House since 1967. He says that co-residency in the Houses increased student participation in--and their expectations of--masters functions. "There were 12 people at Open Houses before co-residency. Now 400 show up," he says. "Co-residency has made the Houses more cohesive, but also more social than educational," he adds.

Preprofessionalism

The rise of preprofessionalism--with the ensuing bundle of letters to be written for students applying to graduate schools--has affected masters as well as students. Fox says he feels that the situation fosters among students "a greater concern for getting out of the Houses than with living in them."

The plethora of tutors which each House appoints to write these letters has taken away from the masters' role in this process. Up until the 1960s, according to Thomas A. Dingman '67, assistant dean of housing and senior tutor of Leverett, the master was the one who took it upon himself to recommend seniors for jobs in firms, often firms run by graduates of the same House.

A University report's review of letter-writing pays tribute to Finley's prodigious output, while recognizing that the letter-writing master is a disappearing breed. "One person who every admissions office in the country knew was John Finley, whose letters were famous for their length and eloquence," the report said.

Maintenance

To match the boom in graduate school applications, which practically doubled from 1957 to 1967, the Houses brought in more pre-law and pre-medical tutors. In addition, the creation of the Allston Burt senior tutors in 1953 established the central administration in each House office, again detracting from the educational role of the masters.

"It redefined slowly the notion of a House as an administrative unit rather than an educational one," Heimert says. With educational duties lessened, Masters began to step into the role of a caretaker of the House. If there's a pipe burst in C entry, the master is the first one they call," says Dowling.

"The de facto job description is different from what I had anticipated says Heimert. The bulk of a master's energy is consumed in physical facilities rather than what I had expected as an under graduate and as a tutor that of trying to order an institution which has as its goal education in the broadest sense."

But even maintenance has been taken out of the master's control by the Department of Buildings and Grounds. Dowling recalls the difficulties of getting permission for $6000 of minor renovations at Leverett.

The problem of red tape could be solved in the short run by assigning custodial workers to the Hoses, and in the long term by making each House responsible for its own upkeep, Dowling adds.

Most masters agree that the major discrepancy between the House system and the Cambridge-Oxford model is the financial independence of the colleges. Each college has its own endowment at Oxford and Cambridge, and consequently the Masters and the Senior Common Room have a great stake in the House.

While no one is suggesting that the House become so loosely tied to the University, most masters agree that they could use their loyal group of House alumni. "Why not take advantage of the alumni [for financing the upkeep of the Houses]?" Gomes asks, adding, "Part of the reason for the recent renovations is past neglect."