The release this week of a new report showing wide demographic gaps among the undergraduate Houses is forcing College officials to confront a problem most say they would prefer to forget about.

Harvard has traditionally liked so think of its Houses as miniatures of the College--what Dean of the College John B Fox Jr. '59 has called "the ideal of the microcosm." But this week's confirmation of lingering disparities between the Houses in the racial composition and athletic participation of residents has dispel led that perception.

As a result, administrators are bracing themselves for a probable series of discussions next fall--most likely in the Faculty Council and among the House masters--which they say will resolve the issue of whether the College should tamper with the generally popular preferential lottery to achieve the microcosm ideal.

The outcome of those conversations remains unpredictable, though Fox and other College officials say they will hesitate to significantly change the current lottery system unless a clear consensus for another method develops.

At present, none of the off mentioned alternatives--quotas, ceilings on the number of students of a given type permitted in a House, or a totally random lottery--seems to draw wide support.

One thing, however, seems almost certain. Next fall will feature a philosophical showdown between two loose camps of officials--those who prize the microcosms goal enought to overcome the practical flaws of other House assignment schemes and those who value the current preferential system and the unique House characters that have developed because of it.

On one side stands a group of University Hall officials who have voiced concern about the racial and athletic disparities neither of which have lessened significantly since a January survey initially uncovered the gaps.

That group whose members are pushing for vigorous review of other lottery option seems to include Fox, Assistant Dean Thomas A. Dingman '67 and Dean K. Whitla, director of the office of instructional research and evaluation who conducted both demographic studies.

My indication is to do something, Fox who has consistently released to rule out any House assignment alternatives said this week. Patting a random group of Harvard students in a House tends to do very good things.

The reason "One has a better college experience if one lives in a House which is broadly representative Dean favor of any scheme which has the promise of doing that.

Opposing that outlook though is an informal group of House masters who have voiced skepticism of alternative House schemes ever since the initial disparities surfaced.

Mather House Co Masters David and Patricia Herlihy and Lowell House Master William H. Bossert '59 tall into this group, willing to support the informal recruitment freshmen but not to limit the preferential system that has allowed close to 90 percent of Yardlings to secure one of their first three choices.

Under approaches like a random lottery, argues Bossert. "A lot of people [would] be less happy in order to make a few people more happy."

In part, the battle centers around the viability of the informal recruiting that some masters attempted this winter before the lottery, in an effort to diversity their Houses.

Fox and Co contend that "as a long run solution, [recruiting] doesn't seem very stable" The masters, through, point to scattered recruiting successes--like Leverett's increased number of athletes projected for next year--and suggest that more serious promotional efforts in the future could redress some gaps.