Why Random Is Best

Iam almost embarrassed to admit that, before I came to Harvard as a freshman, I had met only two Jewish people in my life. This was not anti-Semitism on my part; in fact, I had no opinion of Jews, or the Jewish religion, one way or another. But the fact was that the community I had grown up in was almost wholly gentile and, at my high school, it was Christmas trees and nativity scenes once December rolled around; if anyone had seen a menorah, they probably would have looked for the birthday cake.

Although I now room with two Jewish students and have learned to deeply respect their culture and religion, it is fair to say that had I not attended a university as worldly as Harvard, that compels its students to appreciate each other's backgrounds by randomly grouping them in their firstyear, I might have continued in my state of ignorance. That would have been a terrible loss not only for me, but for the type of tolerant society we wish to live in. Ignorance breeds racism and, at a school like Harvard where, if past graduates are any indication, many of our nation's leaders in business, science, and the humanities will graduate from, the perpetuation of this sort of ignorance is infinitely more dangerous. With this in mind, the decision the College will soon reach on the future of the housing lottery becomes all the more important.

The house system, whatever one sees its role as today, was originally designed as a form of social experimentation for a College that, like other universities of its epoch, remained segregated and hostile to African-Americans, Hispanics, and indeed, nearly all ethnic minorities. The house system, by mixing together students of different racial, social, and economic strata, paved the way for increased Black enrollment in the 1960s, and the more integrated campus of 1994. "The Houses," said the 1928 Report of the President, were "a social device for a moral purpose." And that "moral purpose" was likewise clear: "young men" of "various fields of thought," different "concentration[s], pecuniary means, and residence in different parts of the country" should be "thrown together" in an effort to increase one's understanding of the other.

It would seem that, contrary to the calls of supporters of ordered choice in the housing lottery debate, who continually refer to the University's concessions to P.C. notions of "diversity" in defiance of its long tradition of house character, history is on the side of total randomization. Indeed, it is surprising that it has taken this long to bring about a change that seems to have been built in to the houses in the first place. Wrote President Lowell in 1928:

"If the young men entering college were allowed to choose their Houses, those coming from the same school, or from schools of the same type and from similar early surroundings, would naturally select the same House; and thus there would be a segregation among Houses on the basis of origin-certainly a most unfortunate one."

And yet, at the December 5 meeting of the Student Affairs committee of the Undergraduate Council, where the issue of house randomization seems to be tackled perennially, the same tired arguments about "bowing down" to issues of diversity were aired over and over. Some comments, apart from being unconstructive, were alarming for their insensitive, nearly racist language. Said representative Chris McFadden, "Diversity is fine in the classroom, but nobody wants it in their bedroom." Another representative chimed in with the well-thought out phrase, "If you want diversity, look for it on your own." And the comment that brought down the house: "Personally, I hate diversity." Despite 14 out of 28 votes for total randomization, the Student Affairs committee decided to present a proposal to the University that continued the status quo.

Completely separate from their disturbing rhetoric (I'd call it imbecilic, but on the U.C. one must be politic), the defiance of certain student "representatives" in the face of what will almost surely become University policy seems to resemble the complaint of a 13-year old who tells his parents that he's old enough to run his own life. The fact is that the Harvard I applied to, the Harvard that I want to live and work and study in, is a place committed to establishing the broadest definition of the word "education" -- a place that reflects the enormous differences between people that exist in the real world and that calls on us all to reflect and correct our own stereotypes. If we continue to perpetuate a system that still leaves some houses with "disproportionate numbers of varsity athletes, or members of certain ethnic or religious groups", as the 1994 Report on the Structure of Harvard College reads, then Harvard remains a university unable to fulfill its promise to provide the best education possible.

To be fair, many students are concerned more with housing location than with the thought of diversity "in their bedrooms." And it is true that randomization raises the unpalatable prospect of housing students in the Quad who are opposed to living there because of distance from classes or, alternatively, placing students attracted to the Quad's large rooms and removed location in the river houses. The reality, though, is that freshman are already housed randomly, and sophomores who are involuntarily randomized more often than not learn to love the house they wind up in. Moreover, total randomization would not affect the selection of rooming groups, perhaps the most important facet of the housing experience. Indeed, it would open up options, since students who before had split apart because of housing preferences would now be free to stay together. Total randomization would also relieve stress from freshmen, who are forced to choose a House at the same time they are being asked to decide on a concentration.

But of course, the real benefit of total randomization will be the realizing of President Lowell's original goal for the House system: a greater interaction among vastly different students that would breed understanding and mutual respect. The College faces one of its most important decisions for the next century in the coming days. One can only hope that administrators will make the brave choice and listen to the voices of the many students who, unfortunately, remain unrepresented by the U.C. Harvard College must shoulder its enormous responsibility of educating its sons and daughters not only in literature, chemistry, or history but also in the diverse ways, and diverse people, of the world.