Still, many student leaders anticipatedwidespread protest in the student body over thedecision.
Rudd W. Coffey '96, co-chair of the council'sCampus Life Committee, said that while hepersonally supported the decision, he anticipatesthat the council may take action against it nextfall if student opinion is overwhelminglynegative.
"I'm [personally] in favor of randomizationbecause I think there's a certain virtue in havinga diverse, random community and feeling thateverybody got stuck in the same pot," he said.
Coffey, a Lowell House resident, said he thinksthat randomization may bring the same spirit tothe river houses that he believes exists in theQuad.
"Instead of taking their houses for granted,[students] will have to live with the roll of thedice," Coffey said.
History
When President Lowell founded the house systemin the 1930s, he hoped that every house would be amicrocosm of the College as a whole.
Up until the early 1970s, each house masterchose which students would be placed in his houseon the basis of applications and interviews.
In 1971, the application process was eliminatedand students were asked to rank all 12 houses.This system proved very unpopular, according toJohn B. Fox Jr. '59, secretary of the Faculty ofArts and Sciences (FAS) and former dean of thecollege.
In 1977, Fox implemented an ordered four-choicesystem. This system eventually gave way to thecurrent non-ordered four-choice system in 1990.
The issue of randomization was raised this yearin a September FAS report in support ofrandomization, co-authored by Lewis.
Last November, the masters voted 10 to two,with one abstention, in favor of randomization.
The randomization decision is Jewett's finalmajor project before his impending retirement.
"We'd been talking about this issue for morethan a year, and it seemed to me that since I'dbeen spending a lot of time on it, that I shouldmake a decision based on what I know," Jewettsaid.
"My sense is that people will at least give ita chance," Jewett said. He hastened to add thatthe situation was in no way "set in stone" andcould be reevaluated in several years.
"It's not a situation that's irrevocable,"Jewett added.
Sarah E. Scrogin contributed the reportingof this story.