Just as it seemed Harvard's standard ROTC debate was moving to a close, administrators seem intent on reopening another of Harvard's perennial battles.

The debate isn't new, and the sides haven't changed. Prompted by recommendations in a comprehensive faculty report, the house masters have renewed their push for randomizing the housing lottery.

In a meeting two weeks ago, ten of the thirteen masters supported a move toward randomization, while only seven said they were happy with the present system. While the masters dispute the significance of their recent vote, the five-year debate has already resumed in the Committee on House Life.

The Report on the Structure of Harvard College echoes the masters' continuing concern over a lack of diversity in the houses. Harvard spends so much time trying to create a diverse class, their reasoning runs. Should students be allowed to undermine this project by segregating themselves in more homogeneous houses?

In their path stand most Harvard students, who dare to think that adults should have some say in where they live for three quarters of their undergraduate careers. Aside from the obvious difference in locations, each house has its own background, its own architecture and its own atmosphere. Students have legitimate reasons for preferring one house over another.

The two sides are separated by competing visions of house life. Should each house be a microcosm of the diverse, sometimes contentious Harvard community, or should each house be a comfortable social unit, with its own personality? Said another way, should Harvard promote diversity within the houses or diversity among the houses? With the two sides so far apart, and the outcome so influential in students' lives, compromise has always seemed the best answer.

It still is. Not yet two years ago, students and administrators debated these same issues and reaffirmed their commitment to non-ordered choice. What's new this time around?

Not much. While the Report restates the masters' concerns, it does little to further the debate.

Five years ago, the house masters and Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57 began the push for randomization, arguing that the old system of ordered choice, where students were assigned housing on the basis of four ranked choices, left the houses too homogeneous.

Students overwhelmingly fought to preserve their right to choose, and Jewett, who has the final decision over the housing lottery, instituted non-ordered choice, where most students are randomly assigned one of their four top choices, as a temporary compromise between the two sides.

Two years ago, the debate resumed. When neither side could make any progress, Jewett reaffirmed non-ordered choice as the best solution between the warring camps.

On the verge of renewing the debate, the two sides are as far apart as ever. While debate in general is certainly a good thing on the Harvard campus, there's no point in senselessly rehashing this one.

Non-ordered choice must be preserved. It satisfies neither side, but it's a reasonable compromise that both have accepted. When two sides compromise, they should stick by the deal unless the situation changes. And it hasn't. If the masters are in earnest in renewing their push for randomization, they are simply being poor sports.

Still, students should not simply ignore the masters' concerns. While randomization is no solution, the masters' call to reduce the size of student blocking groups from 20 to 8 is justified.

Non-ordered choice allows most students to live in a house of their choice, while ensuring that each house will retain some diversity. When 20 field hockey players or computer hackers (or whatever) land in one house, they can greatly throw off that house's balance.

Blocking groups allow students to room with their close friends. There's no need to expand that claim to an extended family of teammates.

While the Committee on House Life may be able to improve the housing lottery process by tinkering with the numbers, the bottom line is that it should preserve its fundamental idea.

Non-ordered choice is no one's first choice. But as an intelligent way to promote diversity and choice, it's a system with which we all can live.