"From the barrios in Los Angeles to a penthouseon Park Avenue," Shinagel says he believes that"one of the things people come to Harvard for isthat heterogenity."

Dowling says he feels every House should bewelcoming to all undergraduates.

"If a gay student can't feel comfortable inevery Harvard house, then I think there's aproblem," Dowling says.

But a significant minority of masters opposedthe move to randomization, arguing that theprevious system preserved the unique character ofthe Houses.

Adams House Master Robert J. Kiely Kiely hassupported student choice in the past, voicing hisviews at a May 1995 rally outside University Hall.

Yet while acknowledging the "good things tocome of it," Kiely says randomization changed analready nurturing place.

"I know my space was a very rich, unique andpositive space for people who were there," Kielysays.

Liem, Forsgard and Mitchell also sided againstrandomization in the 1995 decision.

"I am an advocate of a diversity that arisesthrough students choosing to take advantage of theCollege's impressively diverse population, not adiversity that comes from students having theirpersonal roles in the process ceded to acomputer," Mitchell says.

William H. Bossert '59, who will retire at theend of this term after 23 years of service, warnsagainst relying on randomization to solve deepersocial concerns.

"If there are problems with social inequities,let's talk about race relations," he says.

"Students should be able to choose where theylive and take responsibility for that," Forsgardsays. "Students don't have enough responsibility."

And since students will be choosing their ownhousing after college, Liem says House choiceallows one to "start that process of [deciding]where you want to be."

Liem characterizes the initial debate amongmasters as divided.

"Clearly the Quad wanted to randomize, and theold river houses didn't want to," Liem says."There was clearly a subdivision... Winthrop was aswing vote. I remember very distinctly it was theswing vote that made the decision."