Helplessly huddled together, a group of us stood outside Winthrop House in the courtyard. Not only could we not access the entryway to the building, but worse, we couldn't get out of the enclosed courtyard. We were trapped!

After numerous failed attempts to call the friend whose room we had just left, we managed to get the attention of someone leaving the building. We sprinted after him, desperate to be released from our captivity.

That night we learned a valuable lesson: When visiting friends at Winthrop, make sure they escort you from their rooms to the gate. That night we also experienced the disappointing realization that as upperclass students, we faced significant barriers between our friends and ourselves. Unlike the universal key card access we enjoyed as first-years in the Yard, where we could freely and spontaneously visit one another, it is now necessary to make detailed plans well in advance of every social encounter.

Having friends over now means having to run up and down as many as eight flights of stairs to let each guest in. This process can prove to be quite a workout if, let's say, 16 friends show up at different times in one night. Moreover, as the blustery days of winter approach, the possibility of waiting outside in the courtyard to be let into a building results in an unnecessary exposure to the elements.

Requiring us to plan in advance is not an insurmountable difficulty. But limited access to the residential halls poses significant other problems.

First, limited access is unsafe. There have been several incidents in which students walking at night have noticed strange cars or individuals following them. Unfortunately, instead of simply being able to swipe their ID cards and enter safely into the nearest house, these students were forced to continue walking toward their own houses, the only ones to which they had access. This situation is especially threatening when individuals are alone at night. Although each house has a guard to supervise the area, the guards are only on duty for a limited time. Consequently, if an individual happens to walk by Lowell House late at night and there is no guard, the student may be placed in an unsafe situation.

Second, the current system has diminished students' inclination to use discretion when letting people in the houses. Most students, when swiping people in, do not think about whether the person is authorized to enter. Alternatively, we may feel obligated to let anyone in to our house because we do not want to offend others by questioning them and asking for IDs. If the campus had universal access, students would not be put in such situations because everyone who was authorized to enter the houses would be able to do so. Students would be better able to recognize those who are not authorized to enter and would be less worried about offending others.

Third, the limited access system has a chilling effect on campus unity. One of the best aspects of living in the Yard was not just the proximity of the buildings, but also the spontaneous visits paid to and received by friends. By limiting access to specific houses, students are less likely to drop by just to visit. They either have to call or take their chances that someone will be coming out of the building. This can be quite a gamble, especially during the winter months.

Furthermore, since students are affiliated with only one house, they often come to deal exclusively with members of that house. Although house unity and pride are great attributes of the house system, this situation discourages students from expanding their social horizons. At a school with such a dynamic and diverse student body, students should be encouraged to broaden their associations rather than to narrow them. The University, in instituting the randomization of house selections, responded to concerns that students were limiting themselves to particular groups and circles. However the failure to give upperclass students universal access still encourages students to limit their associations to a small group. Universal access to the houses would improve campus unity and social interaction.

According to Associate Dean for Human Resources and the House System Thomas A. Dingman '67, one of the reasons that the Yard does have universal access is because, unlike the numerous house administrations, there is only one body that makes decision for the entire Yard. Of the houses, Dingman says, "It is not one office making the decision. There are 12 separate decision-making units. There has been some strong sentiment that there is less control when the people milling about and passing through the house are not your own students."

The University has chosen to cede authority over key card access to the house masters. However the administration could declare a College-wide policy that would apply to all the houses, the same way they presently do for many other things such as regulations for parties or mandatory tutor meetings.

The limited access system is a downside to life on campus. By restricting students from freely entering different houses on campus, the University inconveniences students, undermines safety and prevents the friendly ambiance that would increase the social dynamics of the campus.

For something as easy as switching to a universal system, the College could make a whole lot of students very happy.

Talhia T. Tuck is a sophomore living in Lowell House.