The era of choice has officially ended. Three years after the College told the class of 1999 they would have no choice as to where they would spend their upperclass years, the Houses are now fully randomized.

But now that they are, the College is waffling on the promise it made three years ago to review randomization when this moment arrived.

Meetings have been held, surveys have been discussed, and data will surely be compiled. But with both Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68 and Dean of Students Archie C. Epps III saying they do not expect any major policy changes in the coming year, prospects for a revised house assignment policy any time soon seem dim.

"I'm not anticipating going back to square one," says Lewis, who chairs the Committee on House Life, which would investigate any such policy change.

Epps agrees, arguing that randomization must be given a chance to prove itself as a system that promotes greater integration.

"I don't expect any change in policy on randomization--that would be my best guess," Epps says. "We have just achieved full randomization. There is no record yet."

But for the 26 minority tutors who signed an open letter last spring criticizing randomization for breaking apart communities of minority students, time is of the essence.

This year's first-years have never known a Harvard that was not fully randomized. And sophomores, juniors and seniors have never belonged to a House community that they and their neighbors all chose.

So the question remains: Will the long-promised review of randomization ever materialize, or will the call for change die with the graduation of the only members of the campus community who remember the way it used to be?

Behind Closed Doors

The first tentative steps toward a re-evaluation of randomization began this summer when Epps invited tutors and masters to discuss the issues that were brought up in the minority tutors' four-page letter issued last May.

Epps estimates about five masters and eighttutors attended the three July meetings, inaddition to Thomas A. Dingman '67, associate deanof the House system.

Lewis, who is ultimately responsible for anychanges in residential life, did not attend themeetings, although a representative of his staffdid.

Still, Lewis said the meetings were "helpful,"and Epps said everyone who attended left themeetings with a greater understanding of thecomplexity of the issues surrounding any Houseassignment policy.

But for many of the tutors at the meetings, themeetings should have been an opportunity todiscuss possibilities for concrete policy changesin addition to re-explaining the concerns they hadalready expressed.

"I felt as if we were talking in circles arounda complex of deeply emotional issues without evergetting too specific," wrote Shirley Thompson, aresident tutor in Adams House, and StephenMarshall, a resident tutor in Currier House, in ane-mail message.