It’s been 150 years since the abolition of slavery, so answer me this: why do I still have a “master?”

Harvard University has this allegiance to tradition that is charming when applied to architecture, rivalries and commencement, but not so much when it offends an entire community. I have to put the word “master” in quotes because, yes, it makes me cringe every time I say it/see it/think about it. It essentially encompasses the horror of the institution of slave and master that our country was conceived by, yet the College maintains this derogatory title in each House.

In the past, Harvard has recognized the faults in some of its traditions, such as discrimination towards women and minority groups in its admissions, and thus should understand that this insensitive title is no different. This custom of “Masters” leading each House honors an element of Harvard’s history that should evoke shame and disgrace. It is time for the College to progress and change this controversial label to House President, House Head, Prime Minister—whatever—but it must convert it to something that is not a constant salute to a painful and reprehensible past.

Honestly, what merit besides custom does the word “master” carry? The title causes a lot more trouble than it ever prevents. For example, an e-mail that was sent over the Adams House open-list with the subject “Master’s Watermelon Liberation” only sparked a flurry of angry e-mails in response. Perhaps if the subject instead said “President’s Watermelon Liberation” it would have been less controversial, but the combination of the title of the former flogger of black slaves juxtaposed to the fruit that these same men linked to African-Americans was too much.

Regardless of the intentions of the writer of that subject (whether malicious or benign), the situation highlights a greater issue—the imposition of “Masters” on Harvard students is grossly insensitive and instigates conflict that can easily be avoided.

Frankly, it worries me that there has not already been a serious discussion and consideration about the alteration of this title. The tactless nature of it is quite obvious to most of the black students on this campus—why isn’t it to the “Masters” and other administrators? Though I have nothing against the House Masters themselves, it must be stated that they submit to a title that is offensive to me and other students. I have tried to correct people by forcing them to say “House Master” instead of plain “master” around me, and for the most part that’s how official e-mails and flyers have been addressed—but not always. People are already too accustomed to the word.

I reached my limit today when I was walking to my room in Currier House and saw a sign for the “Master’s (not ‘House Master’s’) Open House”. What’s next? A flyer for the “Massah’s Open House?” Neither I, nor any other person in the Harvard community should ever have to address someone by a title that is as blatantly offensive as the word “master,” and I refuse to do so ever again.

So as a plea to Harvard University—please stop making me cringe!

Monica M. Clark ’06, a Crimson news editor, is a History and Literature concentrator living in Currier House.