To the Editor of the Crimson:

Almost a week has passed since the Class of 1941 received the annual shock of fining a large proportion of its members refused admittance to House. Houses, which the University claims, should play the integral role in a Harvard undergraduate's life. Yet, as in previous years, not a thing has been done.

As a member of the Student Union Committee on the House problem I interviewed a House master who professed amazement at the passiveness with which the students accept the deplorable lack of facilities. This passiveness can be explained by the satisfaction of most us who were admitted, coupled with the fear the disappointed have that their protests will be labeled "sour grapes.'

Not only were many Freshmen shocked by the large number rebuked, but were also amazed at the often unfair, and completely undemocratic method of choice which allows admittance of men on probation, while turning away honor students. Yet when the University attempts to explain away the situation, it invariably points to a number of men, not admitted, but "ineligible." How can a University boasting a liberal point of view condone a system of education which segregates the poorer students, so that they may steep together (sic) in their intellectual inertia? Is not the House just the place where they might find the stimulation they need through contact with students of other intellectual levels?

It seems obvious that student investigations, proposals, and panaceas are futile, for it is not the students can and should do is force the University to state its position. We cannot decide whether a new House, or House privileges for dormitory residents, or the President's curtailment plan is the solution. But I feel we are in a position to demand of the University what action it plans or doesn't plan. Leo Mark '41.