To the editors:

Regarding "Adams Residents Question HoCo Accountability" (News, May 17): As a former resident of Adams House, I feel an obligation to speak for the preservation of its culture. I feel it only right to remind the current residents of what made Adams such a wonderful place: diversity.

The unfortunate truth today is that true diversity of opinion and culture seldom exists in America. Year by year we watch as the tyranny of the majority gradually homogenizes our culture. The election proposed by Brian A. Shillinglaw '01 and Miranda E. W. Worthem '01 would do nothing but eliminate one of the last bastions of true intellectual diversity permitted on the Harvard campus.

What these well-meaning cherubs fail to take into account is that although the position of Adams House Committee chair is not an elected post, it is, to the best of my understanding, not merely doled out to the outgoing chair's partner-in-crime but handed over to the individual or individuals who have demonstrated the most desire to participate in the House committee. Participation, more than anything else, generally dictated who would be the next to lead. Since participation would generally be a good attribute in a job that requires quite a bit of activity (as opposed to self-aggrandizing delegatory skills), the system hardly seems unreasonable.

Concerning Shillinglaw and Worthem's contention that the House committee is unresponsive to residents' predilections, I ask only one question: Have these individuals bothered to attend House committee meetings? It has been my experience that House committee meetings have always been open to anyone willing to attend. These meetings, when I attended, were generally an open forum where the participants debated the rationale for taking actions as appropriate. What Shillinglaw and Worthem are suggesting is not responsiveness to a body of participating residents, but repression by a group of nay-sayers.

The beauty of Adams House in its past glory was that it confronted people's inhibitions and prejudices and challenged their hypocrisy. It allowed diversity of opinion and lifestyle to cohabit as opposed to outlawing every form of expression that failed to be sanctioned by the majority. It advocated toleration of differences of opinion as opposed to homogenization of thought.

So, please, why should Adams survey other Houses in order to decide its own policies? Why shouldn't a House dedicated to originality and freedom of thought seek its own path? For, I assure you, the castrating of individuality and the destruction of the principle of toleration and coexistence are far more offensive than a few naked bodies.

AMALIE WEBER '96

May 26, 1999