Then, in the words of Currier House representative Katherine Garrett '76, "a fight broke out." House masters and student representatives objected to the emphasis on 1-1-2 and Bossert offered a motion for comprehensive study of all five options.

The brouhaha continued as Pipkin ruled the motion out of order, saying that the agenda called only for discussion of the administration plan and not for a vote. The committee then voted to overrule Pipkin and passed the Bossert resolution with several abstentions but no negative votes, according to several CHUL members.

Bossert said last night the "sense" of the meeting was that the administration should not devote its limited time and energy to studying the proposals that are "not particularly popular" and not likely to happen.

Students were concerned, he added, that giving more attention to the plan would increase the likelihood of its adoption by forcing the administration into "this business of recouping your investment."

Bossert said he had objections to the 1-1-2 plan, which would abolish Houses in the Quad and limit those on the River to the junior and senior classes. "Right now Houses are on the border of being dorms," he added. Implementing the plan would "seriously modify" them, he said.

Several members of CHUL objected last night to the emphasis they believe the administration's proposed study would give to the 1-1-2 plan. Steuart H. Thomsen '76, Mather House representative, said the proposal "looked very biased, especially for people with very serious doubts about the 1-1-2 program."

Thomsen said he has yet to talk to any student members of CHUL who favor the 1-1-2. In addition, he said, masters who haven't spoken about the study are concerned about its effects on the Houses.

Margaret C. Ross '76 of Lowell House said that the proposal "came out sounding very biased" that the "direction" the summer study group had suggested for the review surprised committee members.

Dean Whitlock said last night the summer study group selected the 1-1-2 plan for special analysis because it is so "far out" and "of such great potential either for major change or major destruction at Harvard."

This specific choice, however, was "perceived as a preference" by committee members, Whitlock said.

Whitlock said he tried during the meeting to suggest that CHUL study the other four housing options while the coordinating committee reviews 1-1-2. But, he said, "I don't think anyone heard me.