Non-Ordered Choice: Compromise, not Cave-In

To the Editors of the Crimson:

Last Thursday, you ran a letter that stated that the Undergraduate Council caved in on randomization. The letter implied that the council was trying to take the easy way out of the issue instead of representing the views of its constituents. This is simply untrue.

Kenneth A. Katz '93 implied that the council was ignoring the students' views. On the contrary, our main problem (if you want to call this a problem) has been trying to listen to students' views too much. Although most freshmen are against randomization, there are many upperclassmen who would favor it. Trying to come up with a consensus proposal has been very difficult, and we have not come to a consensus even after two month of debate. As little as Ken might like it, the council's job is to represent all of the students, not just the freshmen.

I also wonder why Katz says that endorsing the non-ordered choice proposal would be caving in. Most people, including Katz it seems, don't fully understand what non-ordered choice would mean for them. If we had non-ordered choice with three choices, the only difference between it and the present system would be that around percent fewer of the students would get their first choice (33 percent instead of near 50 percent) and 20 percent more of the students would get their third choice (33 percent instead of around 10 percent). Also, non-ordered choice has an added benefit in that around one third of the people who were randomized last year would not have been under non-ordered choice. This does not sound like a cave-in to me.

The main thing that Katz fails to remember, though, is that Harvard is not a democracy. Although it would be nice if the Undergraduate Council had the power to decide what housing system Harvard should use, the decision will be made by Dean Jewett with advice from the house masters. I have talked to Jewett and most of the house masters about the issue, and there seems to be a consensus that Harvard needs to change its housing policy.

Acknowledging this fact is difficult, but it is important for us to do so if we are going to make effective proposals. Since Jewett released the data on the makeup of the different houses, the debate among the house masters has shifted from whether to change to housing system to how much we should change the housing system.

Having the UC endorse the present system is like having the UC endorse ending Third World hunger. Both of them might be nice statements, but neither would do anything to solve the problem.

What the UC can do, though, is try to convince the house masters to make a smaller change. I think that non-ordered choice would be preferable to what seems to be the main alternative, 100 percent randomization. Many of the house masters have said that they are interested in finding an agreeable middle ground. The way for the UC to do that is to endorse a consensus proposal and call for the house masters to choose it instead of 100 percent randomization. James M. Harmon '93