Unfortunately, both the six-house plan and full randomization suffer from the same misconception. both rest on the belief that the distribution of blocking groups is the cause of racial and social segregation. But it is not the lottery that is at fault; it is the blocking groups themselves.

It only takes a moment of thought to realize that homogeneous blocks create homogeneous houses. Consider: if every block were a diverse mix of people, then the houses would necessarily be mixed as well. It is only when, for example, all of the all-Jewish blocks select the same houses that self-segregation becomes a problem.

So what happens when you randomize the lottery and put a block of eight athletes next to a block of ten computer hackers? Each block will retreat into itself, maintaining social ties outside of the house and not creating a house community. The architecture of most houses, comprised of small entryways and suites with common rooms, allow people to isolate themselves easily, even within the same house.

In anticipation of this problem, the Committee on House and College Life (COHL) decided in January to limit block size to sixteen, down from twenty. House masters had advocated a limit of eight in November, "as a step towards making the composition of the houses more random."

There is no practical difference between twenty and sixteen, as only one block in the past five years has been larger than sixteen members. Still, I would maintain that even a block size of eight is enough to foil the noble efforts of randomization's advocates.

The real solution to the problem of self-segregation, then, is to foster diversity within blocking groups. This effort obviously must be made during a student's first year, when the blocking groups begin to form an social ties are established.

Currently, the College does very little in this regard. Aside from randomly mixing students in the Yard--which does have significant impact--it is difficult for first-years to meet each other in an intimate setting. Freshman Week is a blur of placement exams and Crimson Key ice cream socials--which, despite good intentions, are not good places to get to know someone.

In light of all this, it should not come as a surprise that first-years are led to more intimate--but homogenous--communities, formed around racial or social characteristics. The students who self-segregate are not doing so because they are close-minded or racist; they do so because they are attracted by communities that are more welcoming and friendly than the College as a whole.

It is ironic that while The COHL discussed the pros and cons of randomization, Dean of Students Archie C. Epps Ill said last week that the new Loker Commons is "a planned response to a weakness in [Harvard's] social life. We don't think it's easy for students to meet each other."

Epps noted that the recent growth in Greek life at Harvard is a response to this weakness. The void that leads students to sororities and fraternities--small homogeneous communities--is the same one that leads students to homogeneous blocking groups and homogeneous houses. If the College seriously addresses this issue, it will solve both problems. If it does not, it will solve neither.

Randomization looks like an attractive solution to self-segregation because it is easy. It would be nice if a complex social problem could be resolved with one clean stroke. But things are much more complicated, and it will take more than the magic bullet of randomization to accomplish Jewett's goals.