At its best, an upperclass House at Harvard becomes a home, even an extended family. Much more than a merely a place to sleep and take meals, a house provides the intangible learning opportunities and friendships that will be remembered long after recollections of courses or academics have faded.

But the Harvard housing system does not work simply by existing. All the benefits that students derive from being associated with a House, in fact, can be traced to the hard work and caring of house tutors and, ultimately, House masters. The administrative and symbolic leaders of their houses, House masters set the tenor that gives each House a distinctive personality and, more broadly, determines whether the House succeeds or fails.
Residents of Quincy House witnessed the community-building power of House masters this year, as interim house masters Helmholtz Professor of Health Sciences Lee and Deborah J. Gehrke filled in for Clowes Professor of Science Robert P. Kirshner ’70 and Jayne Loader. During their term, the Gehrkes made a continual, ongoing effort to actively participate in House life, dining regularly in Quincy’s dining hall, attending sports events and performances of Quincy residents, and hosting frequent events in their residence.

The Gerhkes’ term as House masters was an overwhelming success, judging from rave reviews from many Quincy House students, especially when compared with that of the Kirshners, who were notably absent from the dining hall and rarely sponsored events.The contrast between the performance of the Gehrkes and Kirshners as house masters—highlighted in a letter signed by 77 Quincy House seniors sent to the Kirshners in April and recently obtained by The Crimson—demonstrates the power that masters wield in forming a house’s social fabric. It also raises fundamental questions about the way Harvard’s housing system is run.

The general sentiment among many Quincy House residents is that the Gehrkes, who have overseen a dramatically positive transformation in house life, should be allowed to stay on as House masters. Kirshner and Loader, however, plan on returning in the fall. Judging from the apparent wide disparity between the two sets of masters’ performance, we support the Quincy residents’ sentiments.

More generally, though, we feel that the method of hiring House masters needs to change to allow for greater flexibility and responsiveness to House communities. Masters should not be allowed to coast through their five guaranteed years derelict in their duties to students and tutors. Instead, if there is an overwhelming consensus among House residents that it is time for a change, University Hall should not hesitate to make one.
Furthermore, when vetting prospective house masters, careful attention should be paid to how effectively candidates can perform the important social tasks that they must fulfill in order to give house life a more familial feel than dorm life at any other College—promoting a unique and positive House spirit and house life. Candidates’ eminence as professors should be of secondary import: there are a lot of famous professors who would be honored to be named House masters, but only those who can be good House masters should earn the title.

In the ongoing search for new Currier House masters, for example, students and tutors should be fully invested in the selection process. Although the Currier vacancy opened up on shorter notice than usual and interim masters will likely be named, the bulk of decision-making should not be left to administrators in University Hall. Their distance from and relative ignorance of a House’s particular community renders them woefully under-qualified to unilaterally name a master.

According to Dean of the College Benedict H. Gross ’71, input from students and tutors in a House has been—and will continue to be—an important part of the process of selecting House masters. We hope this is not mere lip service.

There should also be more checks on the performance of masters. When their tenure comes up for renewal, the College should seek extensive input from tutors and students, weighing whether the masters have fulfilled their duties to the House effectively. Evaluation should also be more regular. Providing feedback every five years when a master’s renewable term is up does a significant disservice to those students whose lives could be made better in the interim.

When it comes to House life, University Hall must be more responsive to significant groundswells of sentiment, such as has occurred in the case of Quincy House. Gross’s recent meeting with Quincy residents is a good first step, but does not negate the fact that the College administration has been lax in its oversight of House masters. For such an important aspect of student life, a policy of relative laissez-faire will not do.