HARVARD, like the rest of Boston, has a housing. Fortunately, for most students it is not a problem of space, but of distribution; there is enough room for all, but where should they go?

The houses were originally designed to serve as microcosms of the University, which prides itself on the diversity of its student body; but the system has never worked this way. At one time, the residents of a house were chosen by the individual house masters, in the manner of the NFL draft. From this the houses took on steroetypes--even today, houses still boast different characteristics.

The lottery system now in use attempted to give students a say in which house they end up, but student choice has only reinforced the stereotypes. Informing student of their lottery numbers did nothing to stay this trend--which was evidenced by statistics released last year that show that 54 percent of Kirkland House residents were varsity athletes.

IS it more important to ensure that houses reflect campus diversity or to give students a free choice? A new plan discussed by the masters this month may be the best balance between these two needs.

The plan is designed to increase the amount of random housing assignments. Under the current system students are assigned to one of their three choices as their number comes up in the lottery. If the houses they choose are full when their turn comes, they are randomly assigned to one of the houses that has space left. This happens to approximately 10 percent of the students.

The plan would have each house set aside 25 percent of their rooms for random assignment. Students would make three choices as they currently do, but houses would fill sooner. The students left would be assigned randomly to the rooms set aside by each house. This makes for a larger pool for each house to draw on, and thus a greater mix of students would be divided between the houses.

Unfortunately, only six houses have agreed to adopt this idea. The plan can only work if all houses are involved. To back both diversity and choice, all houses should signal their support for the plan.

Although the plan reduces student choice (at most, only 75 percent rather than 90 percent of students will have a house they chose), it does so randomly and to the benefit of greater diversity.

One part of the plan may cut back on student choice without enhancing diversity. It calls for an end to telling rooming groups their lottery number. This practice has helped students peg their house choices to realistic expectations, and it should not be eliminated.

Unless the housing lottery goes entirely random, Harvard can never ensure full diversity. Unless all students get to pick their house assignment, they can never be ensured freedom of choice. Both goals are worthy; hopefully, this new plan will be a healthy compromise between them.