When those portentous white envelopes slide underneath the doors of anxious first-years tomorrow morning, the randomization experiment will be nearly complete. The Class of 1999 was the guinea pig of the historic change in housing policy that has served to eliminate the peculiar characters of the residential houses; after the Class of 2001 rises to sophomore status this September, the only vestiges of jock culture in Mather House will be its glorious weight room, and Adams House will be left with nothing more artistic than psychedelic hallways and a pool theater.

After the Class of '98 graduates, some of us will remember when the Houses had character, but none who lived with it intact will remain at the College; only members of the Class of '99 will remember that randomization began as an experiment. For incoming classes, randomized housing will be the norm, just as unordered choice was for the Class of 1998.

But before the tentacles of bureaucracy do their dirty work and this scenario comes to life, Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68 must perform his promised re-evaluation of the randomization project one year from now. If the re-evaluation does not happen on schedule, there will be no students around to remind Lewis of his promise and it may never happen at all.

Perhaps randomized housing (though in some cases, seemingly not so random at all) has had a few positive effects. The self-segregation that took place among students of all ethnicities and interests is now confined to the oversized blocking groups, and house life now exposes students to a wide variety of peers they may have never otherwise met. We self-segregate enough in the real world--a little forced integration shouldn't hurt us.

But randomization also has many enemies among students, tutors and even House masters. Loss of student autonomy is one major complaint." The University treats us like adults when it comes to choosing concentrations," some students say, "but when it comes to where we want to live, the administration treats us like children." Another major complaint is the break-up of community that has come with randomization. Living with people like you creates a feeling of solidarity and strength that may not be available from other outlets. Moreover, in some Houses, enthusiasm for traditional House activities has waned--the Lowell House Opera is one example-- as student feel little connection with those who came before.

A final bone many pick with randomization is the "blandification" of the houses. Pforzheimer House, for example, where many black, Latino and Asian-American students chose to live in before randomization, could now just as well be the pre-randomization Leverett House, which had very little character due to its reputation as a "Quad buster."

Randomization is a complex experiment, and as with all experiments, we need to check the results. Dean Lewis must perform a complete re-evaluation of randomization next year as promised, taking community input into consideration.