Imagine: You arrive at Harvard for the first time. Your parents help you lug your bags up four flights of stairs. You enter the common room and meet and greet your three new roommates and try to match them to the names you received by mail three weeks ago: "Hey, you must be John Jayman, from New York!" But no, John is missing. You shrug and assume that he's late. But as the days pass, your roommate Alex eventually calls the Freshman Dean's Office (FDO) to inquire. He gets off the phone and drops the bomb "John switched rooms. He didn't want to live with a homosexual." All eyes turn to the earring in your right ear.

Welcome to Harvard--an experiment in diversity. You've just become a lab rat.

Each year, students arrive from across the nation and the globe. They grew up in different cultures, subscribe to different politics, prefer different foods and have differing moral values. And they are brought here and expected to eat, sleep and learn together. It is a miracle of modern universal tolerance and a crisis waiting to happen.

And who presides over this giant test tube? The University--master administrator. In addition to classes, Harvard is responsible for students' food, lodging, physical protection, intellectual liberty, religious freedom and personal comfort.

In the interests of a tolerant learning environment, Harvard tries to ensure the easiest possible transition from home to school and the maximum comfort of each individual student. Unfortunately, good intentions do not necessarily lead to positive results. By being responsible for the protection of each students personal beliefs, Harvard is often forced to make morally questionable decisions. The FDO's policy regarding housing is a perfect example.

If a first-year learns that his or her roommate is gay and wishes to change rooms, the University complies, even if the two people in question have never even met, much less lived together. This policy was rightfully denounced by a recent Undergraduate Council resolution against homophobia as "creating an environment in which homophobia is seen as an acceptable belief which should be accommodated." Indeed, by allowing a rooming change before the roommates have met, the University is in fact reinforcing blind prejudice. And in the wake of an outbreak of homophobic vandalism on campus, it certainly appears as though Harvard is not doing enough to ensure tolerance of all lifestyles.

And this policy becomes even more disturbing when you think how far it could be pushed. This same policy was probably used 50 years ago by people who didn't want a black roommate. This same policy could be used for the benefit of anti-Semites, anti-Asians, anti-Catholics. With slight tweaking, any bigot can get roommates of the ethnic background, religious beliefs or sexual orientation of his or her choice.

One starts to wonder why the University permits this. Homophobia, racism and religious bigotry are certainly not endorsed by the school. How can Harvard consider a roommate's sexual orientation a valid reason to move?

Well, like most issues, this question has another side. As a university and not a religious institution, the University is responsible for the protection of all student's beliefs, including morally questionable ones. That means that homophobes, racists and bigots of all kinds have rights too. No one, should be forced by Harvard to room with someone with whom they truly do not want to live. Even if their reasons are immoral to you and to the University.

If this idea seems shocking to you, remember that self-segregation is not always taboo at Harvard. It often seems that minorities room with at least one roommate of the same ethnic background. It mitigates the shock of being thrown into a mostly white environment.

So, where does this leave the FDO's policy on homophobic roommates? The policy remains a bad one because it treats homosexuality as an exception to the general rule of first-year housing. Every other complaint about rooming is handled after arriving at school. Why should homosexuality be any different? A valid judgement cannot be made before knowing the person.

But once having lived together for a few weeks, if a student's homophobia has not lessened, the University has no choice but to switch them out. In the final analysis, the college is responsible for each student. And neither the gay student or the straight stidemt benefit from forced social interaction. Harvard, our ubiquitous big brother, must step in and sort things out.

Christina S. Lewis '02 is a history and literature concentrator in Leverett House. Her column appears on alternate Mondays.