At present, the open house policy at Calvin College could better be called the closed house policy. Women's dormitories are closed to me except for two or three three-hour open house periods each week, and men's dormitories are closed to women. Some students are satisfied with this arrangement. Others, apparently, seek change.

Student comment on the situation varies. Most students seem to favor more open house. One co-ed summed up the current situation as ``not too good.'' Another was dissatisfied, if not violently so, but simply shrugged it off.

``It doesn't do any good to talk about it because it is not going to change,'' she said. ``How can it change?'' she went on. ``This is a Christian school. The money would stop coming in.''

A general feeling is that open house periods are now too ``artificial,'' that because of the three-hour time limit they are necessarily too formal.

One student favored more open house during afternoons rather than late at night. Many seemed to think that increased open house would work better, or be more desirable in men's halls than in women's.

Most of those asked said that they could see definite problems which would accompany any increase; a few felt that these problems would be too great to overcome but most thought that they could be handled. As one man put it, ``The administration's stance is reasonable as far as it goes, but they don't seem to understand the problems existent in the dorms. They have to recognize that the students have to have the opportunity to make mature decisions.''

How many students actually want more open house hours is an open question.

Observation indicates that no more than three or four residents might use the privilege on an average open house night, not a very heavy percentage. It may be that most students could not care less about the whole thing, or it may be that more open house would result in more ``co-ed visitation,'' as the administration has dubbed the phenomenon.

Of late there has been some discussion of the matter, particularly in the men's halls, between students and members of the administration.

A petition submitted to the administration by Boer Hall residents, containing roughly over a hundred signatures, asked that Boer be allowed to implement ``twelve to twelve'' (noon to midnight) open houses on Saturdays, for a trial period during November and December.

Dean Boender saw this as unrealistic. He noted that these two months were not an ideal time for such a trial because of the Thanksgiving break and exams. He did promise to review the case over the Christmas recess and make a decision.

Boender's primary concern in limiting open house time in the men's halls, he says, is his concern for maintaining what he calls the ``dorm community.''

If men could have girls in their rooms, he reasons, they would be diverted from hall activities and from interacting with their fellows in the halls.

There would be decline in hall spirit, and the dorm community would become less cohesive. He reported that this has been the exact effect of the recently adapted twenty-four-hour open house policy at Albion College.

Secondary to the community problem, the dean points to other problems.

Difficulties between roommates would become more common, he believes, particularly in cases where one or both have steady girlfriends and would overuse open house privileges.

He also sees a problem in enforcement. Some enforcement would be necessary, no doubt, in view of the administration's emphasis on preventing sexual intercourse in the dorms.

It would be unreasonable to expect dorm staffs to preside over additional open house hours. The staff want no part of it, and the hall councils are not to eager to jump in and take over, either.

Not everyone attaches the same significance to the community idea that Boender does. One resident director commented that there is really no such thing as a hall community.

Students seemed generally skeptical of the dean's primary argument (maintaining dorm community) against increased open house.

One reason for the staff's reluctance to accept an expanded open house program is called the open door policy.

It provides that any student engaged in co-ed visitation must do so with the door to his/her room at least partially open.

Some staff members agree that this rule is reasonable, some claim that it is not. All are obliged to enforce it (unless hall council agrees to accept the responsibility), and just about all seem to dislike having to do so.

Not everyone agrees ... [and] question the right of the college to decide such things for the students.

One staff member complained that by the time the administration had written up another rationale her staff had become so sick of the whole thing that it had just let it drop. Indeed, the administration has said that it wants to hear no more about the matter this year.

Dean Zuiderveen noted that she would like to see a turn toward ``floor autonomy'' with respect to open house.

This would solve the enforcement problem from the point of view of the hall staffs.

The dorms should, in her opinion, be more self-governing.

Presently, of course, we hit upon the old paradox - you have to be more responsible to get more responsibility, but you have to have more responsibility to become more responsible.

This, however, does not rule out progress; it only makes it reasonably gradual.

At present, it may seem that the college is regulating morality. It is. Obviously administrators feel that such action is within their domain.

It may be; it is not universally agreed.

But if they claim that it is, as they seem compelled to do, then they must take care to continually re-examine the situation to avoid becoming unnecessarily logistic.