RADCLIFFE RULES

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Several residents of Holmes Hall would like to point out that, in spite of the CRIMSON'S statement of Tuesday morning, the "Briggs contingent" is not the only group at Radcliffe opposing the proposed rule changes. The editorial raised several questions with which we would like to take issue, for it resorted to emotional phrasing in order to support what it mistakenly feels will be the road to Radcliffe's intellectual progress.

The primary mistake that both the CRIMSON and the supporters of the rule changes have made in all their arguments is the assumption that Radcliffe 18 and 19 year olds are perfectly mature and that their life experience has been adequate enough to prepare them for the same responsibilities and duties in life as their male counterparts at Harvard. Women college students in general, and Radcliffe girls especially, work toward and achieve adult maturity during the latter part of their college experience. Most Radcliffe girls arrive at college intellectually mature, but emotionally and socially they are still completing one of the most important developmental stages of their life. At this time, they are most in need of personal or institutional guidance. Since Radcliffe has been unable to integrate adequate guidance into the life of its students (this mater seemed to be of great concern to President Bunting last spring), the least the college can do is to maintain a set of rules to guide its students from the chaos of late adolescence to the more ordered world of young womanhood, hopefully to be achieved in the junior and senior years.

Secondly, the CRIMSON fallaciously implied that the quality of Radcliffe education is in some way dependent upon the social system. The editors might be interested to know that most girls are attracted to Radcliffe by the quality of the Faculty and by the geographical location. Indeed, most girls come to Radcliffe knowing nothing about the student government rules. The CRIMSON might well reflect upon the maturity and responsibility of the Harvard College student in general. Since he lives under a system that guides his social life with extremely strict parietal hours for freshmen and only somewhat liberalized hours for upperclassmen, we find it difficult to believe the CRIMSON'S contention that the quality of education is dependent on the rejection of a system which at least attempts to further the moral and psychological development of the student through a very minimal amount of guidance.

Lastly, we are appalled by your contention that the Briggs Hall group is desirous of endorsing "hypocrisy." As was admitted earlier in the editorial, the "current regulations are far from restrictive," yet the CRIMSON still insists on challenging those who want to maintain such a system and finds itself justified in pitying those morally weak individuals who refuse to accept the responsibility of rules which are, in truth, "far from restrictive."

Margaret Pickens '63

Ellen Furry '63

Linda Uris '63

Helene Sidell '63

Patricia Witham '63

Alice L. Smith '63

Nancy Rash '62

Ellen Naylor '62

Deborah Zucker '62

Susan Canaday '62

Claire DeMailly '62

Ellen Mahoney '62