WHEN discussing the housing lottery system, many see the debate as being between two competing goods: diversity and student choice in housing. In this view, the randomization advocates favor the good of diversity over student choice, and those against randomization favor student choice over diversity. This generalization, like the stereotypes of the houses, though, is a misleading oversimplification.

If the question were one of diversity versus student choice, we would have to debate the relative merits of the two goals. But the debate is not about goals; it is about policies. As a policy, the present system is the best because it actualizes both goals, as opposed to randomization which disregards student choice for only a minimal increase in diversity.

Those who favor randomization point to the stereotypes of some of the houses as evidence of the lack of diversity produced by the present system, but the stereotypes of the houses--like all stereotypes--contain only a grain of truth.

Although it is tempting to label some people as "jocks" or "nerds," no one at Harvard (or anywhere else for that matter) can be so easily classified. Once you spend time with any of these people, you find that there is much more to them than a label.

THOSE who believe that the stereotyped houses are not diverse fail to see how multifaceted each of us is. We come from different parts of the country, have different political views, participate in different activities, are of different races and concentrate in different subjects. Having one common interest with some of your friends does not make you all the same, it just means that you have some common ground on which you base your friendship.

Even if the houses weren't diverse, we would still benefit from Harvard's diversity. Very few of us are so socially inept that we never leave our house. We meet people in different classes and activities. Contrary to what some people think, we all have lives. Some of us even go to parties.

Not only do we associate with people with similar interests outside of our house, but, conversely, putting people with similar interests in our house does not make us associate with them. Even if the houses were completely diverse and we lived in a community made up of 400 different people, we still would spend out time with the people whom we have something in common with, the people that we feel comfortable with.

IF you are not yet convinced that the present lottery system allows us to benefit from Harvard's diversity, then I'd like to draw your attention to some of the other alternatives that might maximize both student choice and diversity. I would be impossible to list all of the plans that people have suggested to me over the past weeks, so I will only detail what I consider to be the best alternative: non-ordered choice.

Non-ordered choice is quite similar to the present system. Students form rooming groups and can block together as they do now. Then, instead of ranking their top three choices in order, they pick (but don't rank) four houses that they would be happy in. The computer then puts the blocks in order at random as it does now, and it goes down the list, randomly choosing which of the four houses the group will live in.

Non-ordered choice would eliminate stereotypes by getting rid of the ranked choices that enable similar people to fill up one house. If everyone chooses three or four houses that they would be equally happy in, then no house could be filled by any one group.

The system would also preserve a large amount of student choice. The non-ordered choice system might even provide students with more choice than the present system, since students would be listing their top four choices instead of their top three.

The non-ordered choice alternative and the present system let the students choose their own housing and still don't impede our ability to benefit from Harvard's diversity. If the housing lottery debate forced us to choose between the goals of diversity and student choice, we would be in the difficult situation of having to weigh the relative value of these two goods.

But because both of these goals can be realized with the present system or the non-ordered choice alternative, the choice is obvious. Choose student choice and diversity. Choose the present system or non-ordered choice.

James C. Harmon '93 is head of the Committee Against Randomization (CAR).