Making Student Dining Reasonable

Last year, Harvard’s Houses collectively moved to designate dinner on Thursdays as “Community Night.” Spurred by the desire to foster community within the Houses, administrators developed this program to compel students to dine in their own residences with their Housemates at least once a week. This restriction on inter-House dining in the name of community had previously been staggered, occurring on different evenings in different Houses. The decision to settle on Thursday, according to then-Dean of the Office of Student Life Stephen Lassonde, was made in the name of simplicity. Now if it's Thursday evening, students need not look up the dining restriction calendar to know that they can’t eat anywhere but in their own House.

We understand that inter-House dining restrictions are a necessary evil. While we would all love to eat in Adams and Quincy in between our classes in the Yard, these two dining halls simply cannot accommodate everyone. That said, the system is unnecessarily complex as it stands. The need to create convenient eating space for undergraduates has given rise to a system of restrictions that needs to be streamlined, not complicated by the added variable of trying to foster community.

The present set of inter-House dining restrictions is too difficult for students to remember or keep up with. Each House has its own set of rules that differ by day and mealtime. Some Houses encourage their residents to bring an upperclassman guest; others ban guests altogether. Quincy, for example, bars freshmen from ever eating in its dining hall. As the busy undergraduates that we are, we sometimes struggle to fit in a quick bite to eat, let alone budget the time to wade through the long list of restrictions to figure out where we can eat.

Likewise, the ban seems counterintuitive more generally, as it hampers the integration of freshman into Harvard’s social community. If community night dining restrictions are meant to create community, they should shepherd upperclassmen to their own Houses voluntarily, not block freshman from connecting with older students who are eager to be mentors or friends to freshmen.

For students who require their dining halls to be accessible, however, the dining restriction system is more than just an annoyance. It is incomprehensible to keep students whose mobility is limited out of accessible dining halls in the name of community building. In such cases, blanket bans like Quincy’s on freshmen seem irresponsible. Until all dining halls are accessible, these restrictions pose an additional burden on students who use wheelchairs.

In the same way, instead of fostering House pride, community nights come across as attempts to force us to bond with each other. In actuality, most students end up simply sitting with their blockmates on Thursday evenings, foregoing the opportunity to meet members of their House because it feels forced. Meanwhile, other houses have instituted alternative bonding structures—like Lowell’s weekly tea—that are much more effective because attendance is optional. However the Houses try to foster community, it should be voluntary so that it does not foster resentment.

Placing unnecessary restrictions on students is almost never efficient. In the current scenario, community night hampers inter-House and inter-class socializing, instead of encouraging bonds within a House.

Harvard should eliminate Thursday night dining restrictions and replace them with a voluntary system that gives students the opportunity to be more involved with their respective Houses through truly engaging options, like Lowell's tea. Those who choose to participate will reap the benefits of the community they seek.