Choosing Freedom

SIXTY years ago, the house system was founded to bring together rich and poor students into the same small communities where diversity and intellectual life could grow.

However, the goals of promoting diversity and creating a house community recently have been at odds in the divisiveness surrounding Kirkland house. Master Donald H. Pfister's concerns that the concentration of athletes in certain houses--especially his own--are so high as to defeat the College's goal of diversity have prompted swift action. A week from today the house masters will consider placing quotas that set a limit of 29 percent on the number of varsity and junior varsity athletes in a house and a minimum of 9 percent.

Athletes on campus feel insulted by the plan--and rightfully so. The plan demonstrates an overeagerness to believe in the jock stereotype. Pfister and Leverett House Master John E. Dowling '57, whose committee drafted the plan, forget that athletes prossess backgrounds and interests as diverse as any other undergraduate.

BUT the real question here is whether the College is more committed to freedom of choice or the promotion of diversity. Freshman already live in random distributions in the Yard to produce diversity. The current lottery system is designed to give students a measure of choice when it comes to where and with whom they want to live--one of the most important decisions undergraduates make in their four years here. Athletes may pick Kirkland for its location near the gyms; artists may go to Adams for its atmosphere. The College must not pursue its goal of diversity to the point where it prevents students from determining their living environment.

Would the College ever go so far in the name of diversity to prevent students with the same concentration or activity from rooming together? Probably not, but that is the logical conclusion of the Dowling plan (which forgets that students daily encounter people of different backgrounds in the classroom and in their extracurricular activites). Diversity is a noble goal, but being free to select where one lives should not be sacrificed on its behalf.

The house masters next week should keep in mind that any ceilings would restrict students' choice. It's time they realized that undergraduates are mature adults who can make their own decisions about where they want to live and who they want to befriend.