To the Editors of The Crimson:

Once again, the University Administration has manifested its gross lack of consideration for the needs and problems of the students of Harvard-Radcliffe. The salient issue here is the absence of telephones in Claverly, Gore, Mather, McKinlock, Randolph! Russell and Westmorely Halls.

Though aware of this summer's telephone workers's strike, as well as the other complications faced during the most recent stage of Harvard's ambitious renovation project, we find no reason to believe that the current unacceptable situation could not have been avoided by some relatively simple actions. Of course, students are expected to understand the reasonable limitations of the situation and to bear some of the burden; we are, after all, members of the Harvard community and have corresponding responsibilities.

Still, given all that there is to endure now, as was the case last year at Lowell House--noise, odor, lack of sleep, lack of privacy--it seems that the University could have made some effort to alleviate student problems linked to renovations where possible.

Temporary phones, centrex or otherwise, could have been (could still be) installed in the affected buildings. This step would have allowed students to forego frequent trips to a crowded Tommy's Lunch, a noisy Harvard Square, a sauna-like laundry room, or a neighboring house. Apparently, however, the University considers a convenient telephone to be a luxury item. Many students, on the other hand, do not consider it a luxury to speak with a teaching fellow, set up an appointment with a professor, or manage one's extracurricular affairs, not to mention calling the Harvard Police or the Escort Service.

Of course, one's friends have accessible phones, a fact of which they are made more painfully aware each time there is a knock at the door.

Even more important to students, however, is the ability to receive calls, or at least get messages. We are not speaking in this instance of the (perhaps) less necessary social calls one might receive on a given day, but rather are concerned about calls from parents, advisors, possible seminar instructors and prospective employers. Harvard seems to assume that even calls of this nature are a luxury for students. Even though the administration did make some small effort here, for example, the message list in Adams House C-entry, a busy Superintendant does not a receptionist make.

Couldn't a few phones have been set up with this problem in mind? Perhaps one could even go so far as to suggest a temporary receptionist, designated simply to take down names and phone numbers. Though this might seem to some a measure of considerable expense and intricacy, it would have caused considerably fewer problems than the current situation poses, and would, no doubt, cost less than to rush such an extensive project to a more timely completion.

At this point in time, we could all sit back and reflect on the fact that the phones are all but installed and speculate that it is rather pointless to complain. But, as far as we are concerned, these seems to be no reason that we, today's student, should have to endure the lack of phones, privacy, and quiet, in addition to Harvard's general ineptitude, with absolutely no compensation or consideration. Harvard's convenient monopoly (read: stranglehold) on student housing makes their thoughtlessness all the more criminal. Will this corporation ever develop a conscience? Will they ever need to?

The University, after hedging for weeks, has claimed that phones will be installed by Friday in most buildings, and by next Wednesday in the rest. Even though it looks now as if they will be close to their schedule, their breach of faith with the students should not be forgotten. If nothing was done this time, what can we reasonably expect next September, or the September after? Morgan K. Belford '85   Adams House   Stuart A. Kirach '85   Lowell House (Claverly)