Homeless Talk: Inconsistency

To the Editors of The Crimson:

I am writing in response to Carolyn Martin's letter (Crimson, 1/21).

Nearly everyone involved in the Leverett House grate incident would agree with Ms. Martin's underlying theme that the general problems of homelessness and student security are the central issues of the controversy. My differences lie with the inconsistency of Ms. Martin's arguments and the manner in which she portrays the problem as a "no-win situation", adding that "something must be sacrificed, either the vents for the homeless or the [question of] students' security." This attitude creates an "us vs. them" scenario that leads to nothing more than callous treatment of the homeless.

First of all, Harvard has no first responsiblity to either group, but responsibilities to both the homeless and the students. One is not necessarily more important than the other. The fact that these people do not have $16,000 to pay for one year of Harvard's food, shelter, education, and security does no make them any less deserving of the University's attention. They cannot merely be thrown into another neighborhood or institution for us to forget about. We cannot forget about the problems of the street while we are snug in our cozy Leverett rooms. The University does have a responsibility to the community, not only due to its expansion and subsequent diminution of low-income housing units, but, more importantly, as a concerned member of that community. For the same reasons, the Leverett House community ought to be concerned with what is going on our very own doorstep. To not believe so is an elitist denial of human compassion. Furthermore, the fact that community members ought to take action to help the homeless in no way endangers the security of the student body.

I am sorry that Ms. Martin was "verbally abused," just as I am sorry that someone was not there to help her or to take care of the situation. No one should have to go through what she did. Still, this does not excuse Ms. Martin from her prejudicial beliefs nor her use of the pejorative "bum" to describe one of the homeless men. Similarly, an asault by a Black man would not excuse the use of the term "nigger" nor would an assault by any other member of a minority group excuse the use of a prejudicial term. Throughout the letter, Ms. Martin demonstrates a prejudice against the homeless as being violent, dangerous, and generally malicious people that is evident in her argument.

It is true that many homeless are dangerous and many are mentally ill, and that this has led to several incidents in past years. However, to think all of the homeless are involved in violent incidents is unfair. Moreover, the acts of urinating and defecating on House premises, although unpleasant, are necessary because neither Ms. Martin nor any other member of our community has provided these men with proper facilities to relieve themselves. This is not to say that Ms. Martin ought to allow homeless people into her own bathroom, but that there is a reason for these actions--they can't go anywhere else.

The letter's non-sequitur conclusion reasons that the homeless ought to be treated to care in a proper shelter and that the greates do not simply make the problem "just 'go away.''' Well then, what might we do to lessen the problem? It is my hope that the students, the Administration, the Cambridge community, and the city government all make efforts, however they can, to combat the homeless problem. One Leverett House student involved in homeless work noted that this will take commitment on the part of the entire community, not just the shallow enthusiasm that we have shown thus far. Let us not deny them our commitment.

On the subject of student security, a solution such as increased surveillance or police presence and better lighting would lessen the probability of atacks, although no solution could provide 100 percent security. This way, the students will gain security and the homeless will not lose out twice--without excess heat from dining hall vents as well as without a real place to live. Although this cannot be considered progress, it is a start. The real test still lies ahead. Eric A. Berman '88