Randomization: Playing God, Again

It's often tempting to play God. If students aren't behaving ideally, let's compel them to change their ways. It's fast; it's effective. But in the case of the housing system, demanding change despite students' wishes ends up helping nobody.

True, the house populations aren't yet as balanced as they could be, or should be. The ordered choice system was too extreme, and prevented many students from taking advantage of Harvard's diversity. But the College shouldn't go too far in the other direction, sacrificing individuality and eliminating student autonomy.

The Undergraduate Council's new "enhanced choice" proposal would make matters worse. To promote their plan, council members have toyed with statistics, presenting misleading best-case scenarios that distort the plan's effects. Logistically complicated and questionably effective, enhanced choice takes Harvard a step backwards toward a system that many considered problematic.

Non-ordered choice was conceived as a compromise. It increases house diversity and diminishes stereotypes. Yet it ensures that students still have some control over where they'll live for three years.

In its brief trial existence, non-ordered choice has eased the houses in the direction of diversification. And already, there have been gains. Adams House is a perfect example. It's still filled with uniquely Adams events (no other house could pull off Secret Sado-Santa.) But those events are no longer tainted with the we-belong-and-you-don't obnoxiousness that once made them exclusive and off-putting.

If we lost those institutions completely, however, we'd all miss out. There's something to be said for individuality and character. Call it Harvard regional flavor. If every house were a sterile, characterless collection of numerically-diverse communities, some timeworn College institutions might disappear: the Dunster goat roast, the Kirkland Incest Fest.

Students have a lot of reasons for selecting their houses. Some choose location--proximity to resources or activities where they spend a lot of time. Some choose houses because they like the size of the rooms, the architecture or the view. It is wrong to assume that students only choose houses because of their populations.

It is also wrong to assume that students only choose houses to surround themselves with others of a certain ethnicity or sexual orientation, or to avoid specific groups on those bases. In fact, it's insulting.

That's not to say that nobody selects houses for those reasons--a minority of students probably does. Should we penalize the many because we think the decisions of a few are wrong?

And is it right for us to characterize those decisions as wrong or misguided? Students have a right to live where they can feel comfortable. And students who choose to live with others of the same background are doing what most of us do: choosing friends on the basis of common experiences, interests and activities.

Most of the recent talk about randomization leaves out the voice of the students. The Crimson consistently urges student input into many important University and decisions that will affect undergraduates' lives. It's hard to find a more universal College concern than the housing lottery. And if campus surveys and the Undergraduate Council's recent decisions are any indication, the student body as a whole doesn't want randomization.

Within the parameters of choice, there are ways to increase house diversity. Limiting the size of blocking groups, for example, would prevent giant, homogeneous groups from unduly shaping a house's atmosphere.

There's no guarantee that making houses numerically diverse will increase student interaction. Houses are big enough that students within them can still group together, or avoid one another. Better education about diversity, and more campus programs to encourage interaction, are ways to discourage self-segregation before students fill out their housing forms.

These are the kinds of solutions we need--not mandated randomization at students' expense. It's worth considering what students want, and giving them the freedom to make their own decisions.