An Open Letter to M. Scott Murphy '92, the freshman activist leading the protest against the new housing lottery plan:

YOU have seriously underestimated the threat posed by the administration's new lottery plan and are pursuing the wrong strategies in fighting it. After all, the recently announced changes call for immediate--and radical--student action, not knock-kneed petitions.

As a freshman in-the-know, you are probably aware that every spring there is a resurgence of student activism at Harvard. A few years ago, the burning issue among students was the University's investments in firms doing business with the apartheid regime in South Africa. Last spring, it was the embarrassingly low numbers of minorities on Harvard's faculty.

And this spring, it is the freshman housing lottery.

But by assuming that this issue is just like those that came before it, you are allowing the administration to run roughshod over student rights.

LET'S review your protest strategy up to this point: so far, you have collected petition signatures (yawn), conferred with Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57 (yawn, yawn) and coordinated your actions with the Undergraduate Council (zzzzzzzzzzzz).

These tactics might suffice if you were dealing with the run-of-the-mill Harvard liberal cause--say, the drive to force the final clubs to admit women. But the administration's attempts to tamper with the sacred housing lottery are far more insidious than all their past transgressions combined. The new plan is nothing less than an attempt to control the housing choices (and thus the lives!) of Harvard students.

SO what's the solution? You need look no further than the history of our own University in 1969 for a model on which to base your protest strategy. The last time the administration tried to trample on student rights, undergraduates didn't timidly sign petitions or run crying to the Undergraduate Council.

Instead, they stormed University Hall. They carried Dean of Students Archie C. Epps III out of the building. They shut this University down.

Admitedly, these tactics should be held in reserve as a last resort. But contrast them with the "last resort" Council Chair Kenneth E. Lee '89 offered you--a boycott of this spring's housing lottery. This wouldn't accomplish a damn thing, except leave a lot of freshmen looking for affiliated housing in the fall. You should not run from the housing lottery--if you consider yourself a true activist imbued with a revolutionary "student consciousness," you should seize control of it.

A hunger strike may be in order, Mr. Murphy. If you don't feel like doing it, you may be able to pay the Lyndon LaRouche supporter sitting in the Square to do it for you.

If that fails, you might try holding your own lottery-in-exile, say in Paris. With the entire freshman class spending the year abroad, the administration will be forced to relinquish control of the system.

After that, housing assignments could be decided by a student committee of equals. Squatters' rights--which would give new meaning to the phrase "maximize student choice"--could also be an option.

I'M a sophomore, so the announced changes in the lottery system do not directly affect me. But I sincerely believe that pain inflicted on the least of us by an unjust authority should be felt by all.

I also hold a special place in my heart for the Harvard housing system. Take my word as someone who has experienced house life--each house is truly a microcosm of this grand cerebral melting pot we call Harvard. The houses offer students a rich store of perks--ranging from unparalleled advising resources to a bevy of senior common room professors always accessible and eager to engage residents in intellectual discourse.

The beauty of the housing system makes the administration's attempts to tamper with it reprehensible. You must take decisive action--before it's too late. Sincerely yours,   Joseph R. Palmore