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.

Yet this alone cannot account for all the lack of progress. In Claverly, for example, expenditures have already been approved but changes have yet to be implemented. Epps says, "the work has been so slow in coming that I have asked Mr. Hall for a trouble shooter. We need to decide firmly that matters of personal safety must be given top priority, and apparently they're not."

There are similar situations throughout the University. Sarah Forsman '76, a Quincy House student says that in Quincy "no security measures have been taken. Certain doors were supposed to be locked and they haven't been. I've really been disillusioned with the whole process. We've been given this line about how we should really think about security, and nobody's done anything."

Another case in point is the Mather House parking lot. In the last few months three cars have been stolen and another burglarized. Catherine Blake, a Dunster House tutor, wrote to Hall on September 28 following the theft of her car from the Mather lot, and requested relatively simple security improvements. The work has yet to be done.

She says, "It's probably a combination of Harvard's usual slowness in these matters, Steven Hall, and the administration which goes very slowly and doesn't seem to give very good reasons for it. It's very frustrating."

"There's no sign that Steven Hall or anybody up there cares," she continues. "They don't even take the time to explain the delays."

Steven Hall did not return Crimson calls asking him to comment on security at Harvard.

This week another car was stolen from the Mather lot.

Yet, beyond the obvious problems with Harvard's huge bureaucracy in responding quickly to security requests, the broad question of security is a difficult one. Over and over again masters and students are forced to choose between protection--in the form of additional deterrents--and an open community.

One method of quickly and inexpensively coping with crime is to lock the outside of Houses all the time. Yet there are problems with this approach. Many students not only complain vocally about the jail-like atmosphere this would cause, but also question its effect on deterring crime.

It is not at all clear that locking the Houses is the correct response to the problem of security. It is also not clear why the University is lagging in taking other steps--such as bolstering the locks of individual suites in all the Houses--to make less mandatory the locking of outer doors. The only thing clear is that the University's days of crime-free dorms and open gates are over.

Unfortunately the administration's actions do not reflect that fact. And it seems only too clear that it might take a really serious crime to provoke the University into taking some necessary steps.