But the town meeting and the poll in Lowell did convince Stewart that his charges were strongly behind changes in parietal rules. Other Masters brushed off the polls in their Houses very quickly. "There has to be discussion," went the typical remark still, all of them know exactly what their students wanted. That wasn't hard to figure out, even without the polls. But they felt they couldn't simply go by that kind of sentiment. Nonetheless Stewart supported his boys.

At the May 17 meeting only he and Bruce Chalmers. Master of Winthrop, backed the proposal. Both of them have pressed for liberalization for a long time and now Stewart was backing a definite plan, drawn up by students in his House, with the support of most of the College. He called the present system "too restrictive" and said it would be "worthwhile to have a test of this kind of change [the Lowell proposal]." But his arguments didn't work on the other Masters. Even the more liberal ones decided this was not a time to make a case of it. One of them said, "There was just no chance for the proposal at the meeting and there was no reason to push it then." Both that unnamed Master and Chalmers commented that there would definitely be changes sometime in the future, perhaps even the elimination of parietals.

The future-as far as Palazzo, Katz, Magraw, and Crocker are concerned-is next year. Katz and three other Lowell House students wrote a letter to the Crimson blasting Gill and the other Masters for refusing to listen to "an overwhelming majority of Harvard undergraduates." They are planning something big for next year. At the least, a concerted drive, using the HUC as the spearhead, at the most, massive civil disobedience. Just what kind of disobedience no one will say. They don't want to antagonize the Masters just now.

Stewart said last week that "for now I will just try to convince the other Masters of my position." He doesn't plan to have Lowell House break off from the other Houses to make up its own rules. "I have been convinced that this is just not possible," he said. "And I can see why, but I think it might be interesting if we could do it."

No one has really pressed this point, but if it is exploited, the parietal demands could be had, quickly and easily. If a House could become autonomous and, with the Master's advice, make its own social rules, approved by the majority of the House in a town meeting, Palazzo and the others could find the real answer to everything they want.

Even the Houses which did not break off and become autonomous would be forced by the others to adopt the rules that the majority of each House seems to want. If just Lowell, for example, decided to adopt Katz's plan, the others, to keep up the popularity of their Houses, would have to go along. Perhaps it doesn't sound democratic, but apparently the democratic means, as Katz points out in the letter, don't work.

There are some problems though. Stewart would have to break a gentleman's agreement that the Masters use to keep their social rules the same. And even then, all major parietal changes must be approved by the Faculty.

But the main goals of Palazzo and the others-getting the House to be a de-centralized unit in itself and getting changes in parietal regulations that the vast majority of the College wants-would be served by pressing for House autonomy. Magraw said a few days ago that he was considering this, thinking about making it one of the recommendations of his group in the Fall. If it happens, then something very important will come of all the sound and fury and maybe Palazzo and all the others who think that "students can change things here" will be vindicated