To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

The story in the CRIMSON, February 9, about the closing down next year of some of the University housing for veterans led me to think that perhaps the apartment shortage for veterans was not as acute as I had thought. But upon inquiry at Hunneman and Co. (the University Housing Bureau) I was told that the shutting down of the University housing would make the situation tighter than ever, that there are 150 applications in the file of people who need housing immediately, and that there will be more by next fall when the summer's crop of newlyweds apply. Yet the reason given in the article was that the shutdown is due to the lower percentage of married students in the University.

The seeming incongruity was explained by a University official to me as being a result of the University's desire "to get out of the housing business with that kind of housing." He said that when those houses were built there was no other housing available, but that now it is available if you can pay fir it. He went on to say that the buildings were falling apart and if continued in use would be a disgrace to the University. Besides, the University lost money on them.

The decision to shut down the veterans' housing may be right. Admittedly I am not acquainted with all the factors that went into it. But I am left with several questions: Is it not a much greater disgrace to the University to provide no housing, to thereby force married students to live in the exorbitantly expensive and far less adequate accommodations that are available in the community, than it is to continue to provide the present homes even though they are not the best? Is it right to close down the houses on the ground that the percentage of married students is falling, when there remains a long waiting list and when many who would like to apply are not even allowed to file applications? (Applications may not be filed until within six weeks of the time for occupancy.) Is not the fact that there is such a demand good evidence that the University housing is far superior to that available elsewhere? does not the fact that only part of the housing is being shut down this year indicate that it is still practical to use even though some repairs may be required?

Economic Reasons?

One suspects the reasons for the shutdown are largely economic. If so, more questions come to mind: Might not rents be raised some to help pay the deficit? Since the University encouraged veterans, an older group than normal in a school, to attend and enlarged its quotas to take care of them and provided housing for those of them who were married, should it not carry out the program and continue to provide the facilities even though there is a monetary loss? I recognize that the housing must be a liability and a headache; and yet having made the decision to admit this group (and to accept its tuition) is there not the obligation to continue the services until the end has passed? If the reply is that there is a perpetual need, is that not an argument for permanent housing for married students such as that being constructed by MIT? And until such times as it materializes, should not the present program be continued at least as long as possible with the equipment available?

These questions puzzle me as well as others. It would make us feel less as though we had been left out if a mere adequate answer were provided.

The University often seems to be a cold and unfriendly place with little interest in the student. A major source of the feeling in the graduate schools has been a lack of housing. The new dorms are a laudable corrective step. A similar project for married student would be another. In its absence at least an uncurtailed continuation of present facilities would seem to be essential for fairness. John H. Kellogg 21.