At the end of last semester, Harvard’s House masters unanimously agreed to change their title after some students claimed it was too closely associated with slavery in the wake of similar concerns at other campuses. Two months later, however, the leaders of the College’s residential Houses have yet to meet to select a suitable replacement for the title.

We opposed the House masters’ decision to seek a new title in December, and continue to believe that the move was a mistake. No historical connection exists between the academic title master and slavery. Words can change in meaning over time, and seeking to rectify every case of sensitivity sets an implausible precedent. Moreover, without a final resolution, the decision has thus far served only to distract from more pressing problems. Rather than focusing on symbolism, the College should focus on tangible issues of inclusivity on campus.

Now, with the decision to change the title in the past, Harvard's House heads have the chance to address just those questions. To do so, however, they must rapidly move beyond such linguistic subtleties as the appropriateness of alternatives like "leader" and "rector." Instead, the former masters should redirect their energy towards real conversations with their students about what a more inclusive and equitable Harvard experience will look like in practice. If all that comes of the current, closed discussions is a new, more awkward title, and no introspection or learning, then the present opportunity will have been wasted. House heads and students together must grapple with fundamental questions of inclusion in order to find solutions.

A particular area in which house-centered dialogue would prove fruitful is in a more open discussion of Harvard's often distressing history of exclusion. One unfortunate consequence of the ahistorical thinking that led to the title change has been a partial obscuring of the very real instances of racism, sexism, and other forms of oppression that checker Harvard's history. From 17th and 18th century Harvard affiliates who owned slaves and profited from their labor to President Lowell's institutional anti-semitism and homophobia in the early 20th century, our history bears the scars of broader social ills that persist to the present. Direct discussions between students and House masters would help the administration best address the echoes of that history as well as ensure that the Harvard community keeps these issues at the forefront of its thinking on inclusivity.

No matter how students, House heads, and other community members ultimately choose to address the problems and promise of inclusivity, we must do so as a community. Changing the title may have been a mistake, but it need not consume more energy better spent on these much needed discussions. If the former House masters truly wish to reaffirm and expand their commitment to inclusivity, they should act on that desire by seizing this opportunity to provide a space for robust, student-centered discussions on the failings of Harvard's past and our collective hopes for its future.