A Hop in the Right Direction

Leverett House residents have not been happy with their Faculty Deans Brian D. Farrell and Irina P. Ferreras. Last week, students flooded the House email list with their displeasure, arguing that the two deans have weakened House culture by restricting access to common spaces and reducing the number of social events held in Leverett.

The revelations that several decisions made by the Leverett deans had the effect of closing off common spaces and tamping down communal life in the House are troubling. We are hopeful that the dialogue fostered by students will serve as a springboard for improvements in the transparency of House decision-making, both within and outside of Leverett.

We commend the Leverett residents who took the initiative to articulate their grievances by creating and contributing to the email chain. We have always supported students in speaking out about issues in their communities. And while the stakes in the case of Leverett are far lower than in past notable controversies surrounding faculty deans — not least among them the criticisms of former Winthrop Faculty Dean Ronald S. Sullivan Jr. and his tenure in Winthrop House — we continue to believe that any and all discourse is good.

We are further hopeful that in response to these concerns, the Leverett faculty deans will work assiduously to foster a more vibrant community, as their early efforts to schedule more community events suggest they may.

To that end, we encourage Farrell and Ferreras to review — and ideally reverse — decisions students have cited as poor House management. These include the closure of the Senior Common Room biweekly lunches and the private dining room, the difficulty of booking common spaces, adding locks to the Junior Common Room, and the abolition of sherry hour, among others.

If they conclude that these decisions are defensible, we hope they issue a public explanation of their rationale and work to institute reforms that would foster new House-specific traditions that will help build a close-knit, welcoming, and unique House culture.

More broadly, after the Winthrop House controversy, the outcry of Leverett residents illustrates the need for better channels of communication between students and faculty deans in all houses. Though these events are of entirely different degrees of seriousness, they both point to a systemic failure in communication. When Winthrop was graffitied with anti-Sullivan messages last spring, we urged the College to devise new mechanisms for students to voice concerns about House culture. We find ourselves still waiting.

We encourage the College as well as individual House administrations to brainstorm new forums that allow students to communicate concerns without fear of retribution or punishment. In doing so, administrators should be conscious of the power dynamics at play in students’ relationships with House deans and how those dynamics may negatively impact students’ ability to be honest and engaged.

Houses are meant to exist as smaller, more manageable and nurturing communities on campus. Though many Houses, under praiseworthy leadership, have found individual success in this work, the housing system overall has not necessarily done so. Hopefully, Leverett residents will inspire a renewal in conversation about what makes a good house and how that can be institutionalized, from the banks of the Charles to the Radcliffe Quad.

This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.