Many students might not feel comfortable sharing a room with a four-foot python, but most would not mind a few friendly fish. Harvard, however, has no tolerance for any critter on campus, be it mammalian, reptilian, or piscine. The administration argues students may be disrupted and even have allergic reactions to these animals. Furthermore the administrators feel that the transitional nature of student life is ill-suited for pet ownership. But, surely, such a strict stance toward pets is too extreme. Instead of banning all animals completely, the college should allow students to enjoy the companionship of their pets as long as they follow regulations that provide for the well-being of all parties involved.

Such a step would not be unprecedented; a plethora of other colleges have effective policies that allow students to own pets in dorms. MIT welcomes cats as long as they are neutered or spayed. Eckerd University in Florida allows students to have snakes as long as they are less than six feet and are non-venomous. Stephens College in Columbia, Montana, has a three-week grace period at the beginning of each semester that allows students and their pets to adjust to life in the residence hall. If there is continued disruption after this period, then students can find other living arrangements for their pets. University of California’s policy is not nearly as generous, but it at least accepts fish.

Many of these colleges recognize the complications that come with owning a pet during college. However, instead of banning them completely, as Harvard does, they have very detailed plans that clearly tell students what is permissible on campus. For example, Washington & Jefferson has a pet-designated form. They also lay out registration procedures, restrictions on the number of pets allowed, rules of conduct, visitor policies, and consequences of any violations of these guidelines. If Harvard adopts similar policies, it could easily avoid having a pig in Adams.

Despite the potential of such reforms, administrators are nevertheless concerned about the well-being of the pet. Katie W. Steele, director for freshman programming, said in a recent Crimson article, “Is a college dorm really the best place for [a pet]?” If space is a concern, then Harvard can simply designated certain dorms for pet ownership. Freshman dorms may be cramped, but upper classmen dorms, such as Pforzheimer, have spacious rooms with more than enough room. It should be added that not every student wants a dog, and so the suitability of a pet-space could easily be determined on a case-to-case basis. Such a case-to-case policy will also help prevent medical and allergy issues from arising with pet ownership.  For example, the college can require students to screen the animal, confine it the dorm, and receive the consent of all roommates before bringing it in.

Furthermore, enforcing such restrictions on students can only feed their desire. Students are already illegally keeping pets in their dorms, hiding snakes in pillows and hamsters under their beds. Such desperation makes students raise their pets in conditions that are not safe. By allowing pets on campus, Harvard can avoid such treatment. If students know that they can have pets, then can assume responsibility and feel more comfortable putting their pet out in the open. At last, the little hamster can crawl out of the darkness of the bed.

Having pets on campus is not just possible—it also can greatly improve the quality of life by relieving stress and providing companionship. Sara Staats, lead author of the study and professor emeritus of psychology at Ohio State’s Newark Campus, conducted a research study which found that pets bring many health benefits to younger age groups. According to Staats, “Many students said that their pets fulfill a significant role that is missing in their lives.  The pets are not a substitute for human social interaction and support, but they do provide important interaction for these kids who might otherwise feel isolated from their current environment.”

Considering the positive influences that pets can have on students, Harvard should reconsider their policy and give students the option of having pets. If the college provides clear dos and don’ts in their rules, they can avoid the messes, clawing, noises, and allergies those pets can bring. Lastly, let us not forget that students have the potential to be just as disruptive and unsanitary as their pets. However, they get to survive in relative peace because the college provides clear guidelines and regulations. If students are given a similar set of rules on how to take care of their pets, then they too can provide a safe environment for their friends—if not a cat, then a little goldfish.

My Ngoc To, ’14, a Crimson editorial writer, is a social studies concentrator living in Pforzheimer House