But Sheats said tutors responsible for drafting the letters declined to propose formal alternatives to randomization because they hope changes made to the current policy will reflect student sentiment.
"We think the discussion on alternatives should be student-driven," Sheats said. "We were a little hesitant to make any suggestions right now, but as the discussion gets going and other are making suggestions, we might make them also."
Acknowledging yesterday that he had only quickly read the letter, Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68 said sentiments expressed by tutors in the letter do not necessarily reflect the reality of randomization in the House.
"It does not correspond to what my sense is of the general tenor of the But Dean of Students Archie C. Epps III saidthe letter signals that further discussion isneeded concerning randomization. "We need to find a way to address the argumentsand observations in the letter, certainly bysharing our own either in a meeting or inwriting," Epps said. Epps also noted that the administration'smotive in instituting randomization was not todivide the student body. "The randomization arrangements fulfill theoriginal purpose of the Houses, which [was] tofoster interaction and exchange in a societyarguably divided by class and perhaps now byrace," he said. "[But] we have been aware ofconcerns of some tutors about randomization." Eliot House co-Master Kristine L. Forsgard, whohad not read the text of the tutors' letter,nonetheless said the tutors' call for dialogueshould not be ignored. "The community can only benefit by an opendiscussion," she said. "If people are feelinguncomfortable, we should be working to make allstudents more comfortable." Sheats said he felt obligated as a tutor toorganize the letter and that he at no time had anymisgivings regarding his own job security. "I feel that it's part of my job as a tutor,"he said. "You have to speak out, in particular forissues of students of color. If people worriedabout jobs in the 60s, I wouldn't be here rightnow.