In recent years there has been much debate on campus regarding the apparent failure of the Residential House system to effectively “create community” within its sphere of influence. While most are satisfied with their experience, these complaints have merit. The system currently lacks a programmatic emphasis and must be reinfused with popular programming outside the realm of Stein Clubs and parties, bringing speakers out of the lecture halls and into the Houses.

When University President A. Lawrence Lowell, Class of 1877, first envisioned the House system, it was meant to address social segregation on campus through regular social contact. The year was 1928, and Harvard students were deeply divided. The richest of the students lived on Mt. Auburn Street in lavish apartment buildings, several of which now make up most of Adams House. Those less well off lived in the Yard in buildings that would be condemned today; they did not even have plumbing. Many students commuted from Boston. The social discrepancy was so bad that a New York Daily Post writer labeled Harvard a “social orphan asylum.” While University President Charles W. Eliot, Class of 1853, had been content to let private business solve the housing problem, Lowell felt that something had to be done, and so he set about planning the House system.

Soon after their construction in 1933, there was a direct link between the architecture of the first seven Houses and their social programming. Many Harvard students have seen photos of dinner in the early days of the House system, in which students dressed for fine dining ate at a specific time and sipped brandy after the meal. But what Lowell could not have foreseen was what would happen when the tradition ceased, that is to say, how a space designed to provide community through daily, intimate social contact might fall short once daily programming was excised, and when pomp was replaced by informality.

This might not pose so much of a problem for House life today if the physical layout of the Houses were different. While most Houses have centralized social space, part of Lowell’s original vision, it is often necessary to go completely out of one’s way to reach this space. Lowell envisioned a system where students would be continually pushed into contact with each other through daily social programming, so he did not find it necessary to force foot traffic through social space, something more recent House designs have incorporated.

As such, the problem lies within the fact that both the architecture and purpose of the original Houses remains unchanged, while the programming has disappeared. A quick glance at Yale College shows that they improved upon this system—students rave about their near-weekly in-house activities. Student groups bringing in renowned speakers shop them to the Masters instead of lecture halls. While the pomp and circumstance of the College experience has dissipated there as well, Yalies have made up for it by making their residential colleges important for more than just sleep, sustenance, and partying.

Still, Harvard’s system is far superior to “traditional” modes of residential life at most U.S. colleges. At most schools, students live either off campus, in fraternities, or in dorms without much common space, and there is a student center for social activities and group meetings. Harvard’s system is far more encouraging to our introverted students than the system at most schools. Other schools’ most social housing, fraternities, have their own drawback in that they require an even higher level of effort for involvement than in the House system and their social life revolves primarily around alcohol. At Harvard, no one has to rush his or her residential House.

Even though our system is a highly effective vehicle for social contact, there are clear ways we can improve it. For now, the answer lies within a reinfusion of programming within the Houses. A core of House Committees (HoCos) do a great job of providing party events, Stein Clubs, happy hours, and Harvard-Yale tailgates, but few take any sort of time to bring more structured events into the ouses. Every HoCo should create a position to work with House Masters and tutors to create a series of events in addition to the Senior Common Room events already arranged by the House itself. This officer would also reach out to student groups that are already successful in bringing interesting speakers to campus. Kirkland House has already seen some great success on this front, with, for example, their presidential series, in which all 2004 presidential candidates spoke to the House two years ago.

It is true that not every House was built to innately foster community, and so one cannot expect community to just “happen.” It takes an unwillingness to accept the fact that such a community will not exist among post-randomization diversity. In addition, there should be more cooperation between Houses, specifically between HoCos, residential tutors, senior tutors, and Masters, so that Houses might better share what type of events are successful within their Houses. There has already been great improvement on this front due to the tireless efforts of Campus Life Fellow Justin Haan, but there is still much to be done.

President Lowell’s vision was neither destined to fail nor succeed; instead, it was relevant at a particular moment in time. It is time to reevaluate that plan: to take what works, to leave what doesn’t, and to create from scratch a new social paradigm at Harvard. It is time to stop complaining, and to take action. We must bring ourselves together. Community is at hand, it is all around us, and it is up to us to grab it and make it real.



Jonathan C. Bardin ’06, a Crimson photography editor, is a visual and environmental studies concentrator in Currier House. He is chair of the Currier House Committee.