How random is random enough? Last week, in an effort to better realize the intent of randomized housing Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68 announced that blocking group sizes would be slashed in half from 16 to 8. Lewis expressed his hope that the change would lead to more social mixing and help better integrate students into house life.

For years this staff has been bitterly opposed to randomization.

We mourned the anticipated loss of House character, and we bucked at the restriction on our freedom of choice. This latest announcement from the administration represents yet another paternalistic attempt at social engineering. Yet, we must admit, somewhat grudgingly, that it isn't such a bad idea.

The time has come to lay down our gloves and let the randomization fight rest. We must acknowledge that our worst nightmares have not come true--many of the Houses have retained elements of their old cultures, and the fabric of undergraduate life has not frayed into disarray. Extracurricular groups have picked up much of the slack in the realm of community formation, and while Harvard College is certainly not the same as it was pre-randomization, we cannot honestly contend that it has been measurably harmed.

So long as we accept the goals of randomization, we must also support this latest move to reduce blocking group size. Sixteen-person blocking groups were simply too large. Rather than selecting a small group of potential roommates to enter the lottery with, many undergraduates sought to enter their new Houses with an entire social circle already intact. This represented a great obstacle to social mixing and has inhibited the development of a new, post-randomization House life. The ability to block with all of your friends certainly makes one feel safer and more secure, but the comfort of the individual student is not always the only consideration--increased community and diversity within the Houses is also important.

Smaller blocking groups will force undergraduates to reconsider the purpose of the blocking group and reinvigorate House communities. Students will branch out within their Houses and make the effort to establish new circles of acquaintances. Some may be frustrated at having to do some of the work of their first year all over again, but in the end, we are confident that all will find it rewarding, and more importantly, that we will collectively be better off.

In addition to the improvements we expect within the Houses, we anticipate a healthier atmosphere outside them. Not living in the same physical structure is no obstacle to friendship, and we are sure that as relationships survive across Houses, strong inter-house networks will form, improving the overall campus dynamic. Universal keycard access would help these networks thrive while also ensuring students' safety.

Some may ask, why can't we decide how many people we want to block with ourselves? The answer is simple: If they are not compelled otherwise, students will too often chose the easier option of a larger group. And that's not what's best for undergraduate life.