Five years ago the gates of Dunster House that open onto the Charles River were always open. All Yard dorms were unlocked, and the river Houses remained open 24 hours a day. But that was five years ago, when thefts were nothing more than infrequent annoyances and personal attacks almost unheard of.

Crime at Harvard has dramatically escalated since then. In the first seven weeks of this school year alone, Harvard had 105 thefts involving $59,000. For the same period last year, there were 49 thefts totaling $40,000. This year there have also occurred an unarmed robbery, an assault and battery, a robbery at gun point inside an undergraduate dorm, and numerous burglaries.

Clearly Harvard must respond to this escalation in crime. The University has an important responsibility to protect its students. The problems of lowering the crime rate are numerous, but Harvard's bureaucratic structure makes a quick and appropriate response even more difficult.

Given the basic Harvard philosophy of "every tub on its own bottom," it is not surprising that each House is responsible for its own security. Few steps are taken by the University itself to improve a particular House's security situation until the House, specifically the House master, makes a request. It is easy to see then why Claverly Hall, which has no master assigned to it, has been given second class security measures.

The Harvard system of designating individual masters responsible for security in each House is in itself problematic, for masters are often reluctant to make unilateral decisions. And rightfully so, because any beefed-up security measures will not affect the master as much as the individual students in the House. As a result, many masters have been holding meetings with House committees or with the entire House.

Charles W. Dunn, master of Quincy House, met with the House committee a month ago. As a result, the committee drafted proposals requesting specific security changes. Dunn approved these, and in turn passed them on to the administration.

James Vorenberg, master of Dunster House, held an open meeting with Dunster students two weeks ago. He stressed, however, that the meeting was an informal one, for an exchange of ideas, not for definite policy decisions. He noted, "I'm not making any promises here. I've said before, the day I'm told that what happens in the House is my responsibility, but that I don't make the final decision, is the day that Dunster gets a new master."

Master William H. Hutchison of Winthrop House agreed: "We've had a great variety of changes here, and everything we've been doing is under review. All the decisions have been put up for student discussion. There were some decisions we announced--where we said we intended to do one thing or another--and students put forth strong arguments against them, and we've held off. But ultimately it can't be the students' decision."

Nan Vogt, co-master of Kirkland House, acknowledged that the response to a questionnaire circulated there was disappointing. "Only 58 of the 340 students returned them," she said, "but those expressed a very strong and definite opinion. I think we are still hoping we can manage something with their suggestions."

Larry Stevens, Executive Assistant to the Master of Eliot House and supervision of that House's security, said, "Our decisions are made jointly by the staff. It's more advising the House committee than asking them to decide."

Two weeks ago, Archie C. Epps, Dean of Students, met with the students in Claverly. Following the meeting a set of proposals to increase security was drafted.

Since crime has definitely increased this year, nearly all the Houses, together with Claverly, are making some requests. No matter how the final decision is reached, the ultimate plea is for more protection. Dunster wants improved lighting on Cowperthwaite St.; Quincy requests a new glass partition at its main entrance; Winthrop has asked for a higher fence to replace the one now on the corner of Plympton and Riverview Sts.

These reflect only a small proportion of the number and kinds of new protective measures the Houses are seeking. In many cases the decisions for these changes have not been made easily, but now that the decisions have been finalized, the masters want the changes implemented quickly.

Another serious problem is the high cost of most changes. And in these days of administrative belt-tightening, decisions to spend money--even on improving security--are apparently not made quickly.

Part of the fault could lie with the Faculty. According to Jeremy Sabloff, senior tutor of Dunster House, money cannot be spent on the requested security improvements until it is allocated by the Faculty. Because the Faculty hasn't approved the money, changes can't be made. Or so the line goes.