Now that February has arrived, Harvard College freshmen face a daunting task: They must find a blocking group of one to eight persons with whom they will live for the remainder of their college career. Admittedly, this prospect can prove overwhelming. The blocking process can stress and even fracture friendships, and can lead to considerable drama.

The Freshman Dean’s Office, though, has begun to advertise in Annenberg a potential remedy to the oft-hectic housing process: an hour-long seminar entitled “Making a House into a Home: Drama-Free Blocking” that will spoon-feed freshmen the techniques they need “to avoid blocking drama and achieve the best possible blocking situation” and provide them with a “panel of upperclassmen [who] will answer questions and talk about their own experiences."

On the surface, this effort seems relatively benign and perhaps even beneficial to a select group. In theory, students who feel no anxiety over the blocking process will not need to attend it, and those who need extra guidance will be able to derive a sense of direction and comfort from the seminar. This calculus, however, has a serious flaw: It disregards the possibility that freshmen may benefit from the discomfort of having to develop the basic life and negotiation skills needed to confront the rigors of the blocking process without any external administrative aid.

This possibility is not at all radical; it is, in fact, perfectly in line with Harvard College’s mission for each student to undertake “an unparalleled educational journey that is intellectually, socially, and personally transformative.” This mission surely presupposes some autonomy for students, and this autonomy should in turn enable students to freely explore the boundaries of their comfort zones, regardless of whether this exploration involves a salutary dose of uncertainty or hardship.

The event scheduled by the Freshman Dean’s Office undermines this autonomy and encourages freshmen to chafe at and retreat from the slightest point of abrasion in their time at Harvard. It conditions them to think that they are categorically entitled to avoid any difficulty or strife, and that any difficulty or strife they do experience is an indelible inkblot on what should be a pristine Harvard experience. It encourages them to flock for a session of glorified coddling upon any perceived threat.

This seminar is not without a predecessor: It and its concomitant advertisements in Annenberg are disconcertingly similar to, in the words of a writer more articulate than I, the placemat problem that precipitated a quick condemnation from students and an eventual apology from administrators. Much as the holiday social justice placemats attempted to arm students with strategies to avoid gauche conversations with family, the blocking seminar aims to eliminate any stress the process of finding roommates can cause. Both demonstrate a lack of respect on the behalf of administrators for students’ intelligence and ability to navigate their own lives. It is disheartening that they have not identified the common denominator between the two and hence continue to fail to acknowledge and respect the autonomy of Harvard students.

Of course, the blocking seminar is not quite as insidious as the placemat problem, because it does not expressly propagate political positions to students, participation is optional, and issues like blocking are clearly within the jurisdiction of the Freshman Dean’s Office. Nevertheless, both stem from an administrative initiative to intrude in students’ autonomy, an autonomy that is indispensable to the fulfillment of Harvard’s liberal mission.

Furthermore, it is doubtful that many students will truly take interest in the seminar or that any students in the past really parroted the positions advocated by the placemats. Harvard undergraduates presumably have the backbones and keen eyes needed to notice administrative ploys that erode at their freedom. Most probably entirely disregard such initiatives.

These qualifications, however, are beside the point. What is most problematic and incensing is the disrespect administrators exhibit for Harvard undergraduates’ ability to reason and navigate their lives on their own, and their intrusion into the freedom that is a prerequisite to any formative college experience. In fact, the entire problem can be boiled down to a cliché: Harvard undergraduates are adults, and they should be treated that way.

Juan V. Esteller ’19 is a Crimson editorial writer living in Straus Hall.