To the Editors of the Crimson:

In the current debate raging over the Harvard undergraduate housing lottery system, those advocating one position have failed, for the most part, to address the central theses of those expressing opposing viewpoints. I believe the heart of the debate revolves around the clash of different conceptions of the goal of the housing system--its telos, if you will. Is it supposed to maximize overall student happiness, to produce a socially desirable end conducive to a liberal education, or to be in itself a fair process by which housing assignments are distributed? Without direct and unequivocal discussion of this issue, the forthcoming results of the Undergraduate Council poll will resolve very little.

Those who feel that the present system is fair and/or achieves a desirable social end (or believe these concerns are irrelevant altogether) will receive the poll returns with the greatest interest. They believe the housing lottery should maximize utility--i.e. Create the greatest happiness for the greatest number of students. Majority support among upperclassmen for the status quo would thus be a vindication.

Other people feel that the present lottery system, which has been statistically shown to lead to a certain degree of homogeneity within the different houses, is antithetical to Harvard's stated goal of providing a liberal education for its students. For them, the results of the poll will be virtually meaningless; they will press for a random lottery regardless, unless faced with the prospect of student insurrection. Their way of thinking, grounded in the paternalistic "we know what is best for you," also brought us the Core Curriculum.

For those who feel the present system is inherently unfast, any result short of universal acclaim will be an indictment against it. The housing lottery as it presently exists, with students expressing their choices and hoping for the best, seeks the happiness of some (the 69 percent who get their last choice) at the unjust expense of others (the 31 percent who don't, and the 9 percent who are assigned to none of their three choices). The Undergraduate Council poll will legitimate the present lottery system almost as much as a survey in a Roman coliseum might have legitimated feeding Christians to the lions. (Since the Romans outnumbered the Christians, the majority of survey respondents would have presumably said it was a good thing.)

For myself, I will find the responses of the freshmen of the Undergraduate Council poll most instructive. To determine the fair terms of cooperation in a society of citizens regarded as free and equal, philosopher John Rawls uses the idea of an "original position." People in the "original position" are hidden behind a "veil of ignorance": though familiar with how society operates, they do not know their particular situation within it. In the society of Harvard undergraduate housing, the freshman class best approximates this state. If they were to assemble together to formulate a system of assigning Houses, any unanimous agreement resulting from their deliberations would be a priori fair. The poll responses of the freshmen can give us an idea of what they might have come up with if this hypothetical convention took place.

Student satisfaction with the present lottery, as measured by the Undergraduate Council poll, is only one element in the debate over assignment of Houses. It will not decide the fundamental issue--the telos of the Harvard undergraduate housing system. I believe this system should serve all three ends: to fairly distribute House assignments, to add to our educational experience, and to promote general happiness. To what extent each goal is to be promoted should be decided in informed debate. It might clear up some of the confused arguments being put forward if we could all recognize the central issue, and then establish our priorities. I do not say that the ends justify the means, just that it might help us to figure out what our ends really are. Robert Alan Katz '87