Twenty-six current and former House tutors, all minorities, told University officials yesterday that the decision to randomize Harvard's Houses has adversely affected minority undergraduates and severely weakened the House system as a whole.

Calling the 1995 decision by then-Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57 to remove choice from the upperclass housing process "shortsighted," the tutors cite the need for a College-wide reexamination of randomization in an open letter which was delivered to administrators yesterday morning.

Entitled "Form House to Hotel: An open Letter to the Harvard Community concerning Randomization," the four-page letter claims the lack of choice in housing has dissolved the "supportive and nurturing community" that students once found by choosing houses.

"These [support] networks are vital, especially in an atmosphere that is competitive, stressful, and at times alienating," the letter reads. "We sincerely believe that the process of selecting a 'home' was an empowering activity, and for students of color, it was often a necessary activity."

The tutors devote all of the letter's second page to acknowledging and responding to acknowledging and responding to criticism they say administrators raised before randomization.

"Critics of choice have cited the 'Black table' and the 'Asian table' as example of self-segregation and lack of integration that existed before randomization," the letter states. "As tutors of color, we are wary of any policy, including randomization, which implies that a community of minority students gathering together is inherently insular, and thus, problematic."

The letter goes on to counter claims that the concentration of minority students in the Quad Houses and Quincy House before randomization somehow detracted from "campus-wide student interaction."

"[T]hese communities...were vibrant primarily because various racial communities coexisted and thrived together," It says." And the level of student interaction was sustained because students of color felt comfortable, academically, socially and personally."

Without sufficient resources to provide students of color with common meeting space, the tutors say they feel randomization has unduly burdened minority students, leaving them without a support system. They add that the policy does not truly accomplish its goal of increased student interaction.

"By sprinkling a 'manageable' number of minority students in each of the 12 houses one does not necessarily ensure increased student interaction," says the letter.

Instead, the group asserts that the administration's plan has hurt the entire House system.

"In our opinion, randomization has balkanized the houses, producing fragmented communities comprised primarily of large blocking groups that have become a substitute for the spirit that used to exist at the house level," the letter says.

According to Eliot House resident tutor Nicky Sheats, who helped organize and also signed the letter, the impetus behind the letter was desire among many "tutors of color" to make a public statement of their views on randomization.

Sheats, who is black, said the group hoped to make their statement before the end of the year, when the last nonrandomized class of students will graduate.

He said the text of the letter was composed by a core group of five tutors. After sending a draft of the letter by e-mail to larger pool of tutors, he said the initial group worked to incorporate a series of suggestions proposed by the larger group into the final draft.

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 responses [to randomization] in the Houses overthe past few years," Lewis said. "I don't thinkthe majority of [House] masters would accept" thatrandomization has negatively affected the Houses.

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.