THE commonest defense against dissent is to recognize only the most irresponsible part of it. Policy-makers who fail to respond to responsible dissent are their own indictment: they respond only to the irresponsible because they have no response for the responsible.

It is a common defense. The government responds scathingly to simplistic, frustrated placards of anti-war demonstrators, but does not respond to thoughtful dissent by men like Galbraith, Kennan, or Schlesinger. And the Harvard Administration similarly responds only to dissent about parietals as if it were all shallow adolescent whining. The government says dialogue with its critics is worthless; and Harvard administrators say that the parietals issue is "boring."

Students here are told that they lead a free life, or, in President Pusey's words, that they go about their "essential business," as always, "seriously" (Monday through Friday) "and gaily" (Friday and Saturday). Yet students cannot take a trip without paying double for their food. They cannot sleep late without losing money. They cannot catch a movie in Boston with a date and go back to their rooms for a drink. They have to put an alarm clock by their bed in the evening as well as the morning. If an old high school girlfriend appears in the middle of the day, she can't see her boyfriend's room. And, all the while, dorm-livers watch off-campus students paying less for room and board but with none of these troublesome restrictions.

Few students seem to act on these criticisms. Most students remain on campus, and are seemingly satisfied, with the regulations they have. They take satisfaction in the fact that the restrictions are greater at other schools. The majority, for the moment, accepts the situation.

TO take this as an endorsement of the maintenance of present regulations is to think narrowly in terms of particular interests, rather than broadly in terms of the Harvard community. For it is clear that Harvard's long-standing tradition is diversity--a student body with different backgrounds and opinions engaging in an educational dialogue.

For example, it is common knowledge that Harvard could accept an entire class, all of whose members achieved SAT scores above 700. But Harvard wants diversity and accepts those with lower scores. The same applies to geographic distribution, social class, ethnic background, wonks vs. jocks; Harvard consciously attempts to achieve a diverse student body.

Yet concerning not past background but present life styles, diversity is not tolerated in the House system. More and more students are trying to move off campus, largely as a response to the set of restrictions which prevail in the Houses. "Many of the people I know who have moved, or who are planning to move off-campus are among the most interesting, most active, most creative students," says James E. Thomas, senior advisor to freshmen. "These are the students who feel most strongly the need to develop individual live styles--and are therefore the most likely to find the rules of House living restrictive." Thomas believes the general quality of House living many suffer if larger numbers of students choose to withdraw from the Houses.

The entire situation parallels that of an army cook, most of whose customers liked mustard in their pea soup while a sizeable minority liked it without. There was constant feuding in the troop, because the unimaginative cook had resolved the issue by cooking the soup to suit the majority's wishes. Dissent grew and soldiers tried to change companies, until finally someone suggested that the soup be cooked plain and that little dishes of mustard be placed on the tables so that the men could make their own choice.

More is at stake than convenience. In a recent discussion about parietals one House Master maintained that the present parietals set-up was quite adequate for a natural relationship to develop. "It is natural," one student replied, "only if you assume that it is natural to have intercourse with a girl and then to have to stick her in a taxi."

It is not enough to say "natural." The question is, "natural for whom?" It is natural, some think, to have monkeys in cages or goldfish in fish-bowls. But is it natural for men legally considered adults to have their personal relationships restricted, and thus defined, by others?

TWO responses are possible to this criticism. The first is the position that these consequences are indeed natural, but very few hold that opinion. The second position is that the institution should decide by its regulations when, and to what extent, one may be in love or make love.

There are always stodgy souls who feel that such a state of mind or such activity is only permissible after graduation or after marriage. But it seems clear that such a decision is an individual and not an institutional one--and that diverse individual decisions should be acceptable since the institution has made it a point to accept diverse individuals.

Inquiries are met with empty references to the "male community," an intellectual version of the "Be home at twelve, Johnny!" that 16-year-olds get from their parents. Behind the parietal regulations, the administrative surrogate for parents, one cannot help but discern the Board of Overseers, waiting to clamp down on any infringement of the peculiar elements of the Harvard tradition that they so disproportionately asteem.

Perhaps this year's freshmen could be told the truth when they apply to Houses. They should learn that Adams, and to a lesser degree Dunster and Lowell, have minimally enforced parietal rules, while Quincy, Eliot, and Leverett and others have quite strictly observed regulations. The uniform rules certainly don't reflect a uniform reality. As long as the rules are not equally enforced, they should be made to fit practice.

In this case, those applying to Houses could choose the system they wanted: one group of Houses could become a non-restrictive estate while the others could remain examples of the traditional "male community." But when applications flooded into the non-parietal Houses, the Administration would have to realize how much resentment there really is.

One House Master has hit upon the more realistic solution of lessen- ing parietal enforcement because of the disparity among the Houses themselves. It is inconceivable that the present parietals set-up is still supported by others. How can any restriction be called fair when it is applied unequally?

The same illogic surrounds the compulsory participation in the system of House dining. An official of the University Food Services says that the average number of meals per week eaten by a Harvard student is about 15. In other words, around a third of a week's meals go uneaten. Would it be so difficult to allow this to be institutionalized? No doubt some students would wish to continue paying the full price and eating all their meals in the dining hall. But could it not be arranged to allow for those who wanted to buy just lunch and dinner, or (for Cliffies, say) just breakfast and dinner? Or even those who wanted to buy none at all?

It is difficult to penetrate the administrative skin to get at the financial heart of the matter. But it does not seem that these measures would be financially unfeasible when one considers the expense of other projects now underway. A new House is great. But expanding a system is progress only if the system is viable. What is the point of extending a system of upper-classmen residences when the basic rules of that system are failing to achieve a major goal--the maintenance of microcosms of Harvard's diversity.

No solutions are expressed here. What is advocated is a change of emphasis: from protecting a non-essential and even detrimental part of the Harvard tradition -- the "male community," to safeguarding a much more significant part--the support of diversity.

When elements of traditional rhetoric are tested, the real ethic of an institution emerges. The Administration, on the one hand, is either ignoring the obvious conflict between the two traditions, or is ready to sacrifice the tradition of diversity. For they continue to maintain that the parietals issue is "boring." They continue to put their mustard in the pea soup and still expect the diversity on cam-5Adams House, where by tradition, parietals are little enforced.