EVERYBODY knows that "It's a long walk to Dunster House." Dunster is also the smallest and most over-crowded House. Yet, despite these hang-ups, the Dunster Drama Society, the Dunces, the Speakers' Forum, and many special interest tables provide outlets for undergraduate energy in the best Harvard tradition. Thus, the Administration's projected plan to close down the dining hall--the center of most activities--is ironic and perverse.

The Administration has issued no details yet. It has only said that it will take about eight months of continuous work to renovate the Dunster kitchen in order to serve both Mather and Dunster. The Administration has handled this in a high-handed style: not one of the 300 students were consulted at any stage in the decision-making process, the Master's advice was ignored, and plans were not made public even after they were formulated. The announcement was made only after juniors had decided whether to live off-campus or stay in the House and after freshmen had submitted their House preferences.

If the Master, members of the Senior Common Room, and students had not protested so intenselv, the Administration would probably have followed the plan Dean Trottenberg originally outlined, which might have sent Dunster students to Eliot House for their meals. Trottenberg has since said he didn't know what was going to happen on this issue and that plans would be made only after a full exploration of the problem. But this should have been the policy from the start.

The Administration has vet to explain why the dining hall must be closed for eight months. It doesn't make sense that Harvard is unable to enlarge the kitchen, remove the steamtables, and install a dish return tunnel during the summer of 1969, especially since Harvard summers are four months long. Since the Administration has offered no other evidence, it seems that money lies at the root of this problem: it's probably cheaper to close the dining hall for eight months. Yet, even granting that construction plans for Mather House require that the dining hall be closed, the plans could be changed. The Administration's obvious reluctance to issue even preliminary facts and figures suggest some uncertainty about the necessity of the move.

Closing the dining hall under any situation would be a serious misjudgment; doing it in the Administration's manner is an outrage.