POLITICAL ACTION AND RGA

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

The Political Action Committee of the Radcliffe Government Association has distributed to all Radcliffe students a questionnaire concerning political action in the name of RGA. This action would include supportive action in the form of letters, telegrams, and SNCC fasts. However, the questionnaire is limited to the procedural alternatives of requiring a referendum for action each time or permitting RGA to implement action, subject only to standard operating procedures (a referendum if twenty-five people object). That is, the questionnaire considers "when" and "how" action should be taken, completely ignoring "if" and "why."

We believe all and any political action on the part of RGA to be inappropriate. Every Radcliffe student is required to become a member of RGA and to pay annual dues. The purpose of RGA, according to its constitution (Article II, Section A; page 73 in Redbook), "... shall be to further the best interests of the College community. It shall govern in matters concerning student life and ... shall have authority to establish and enforce social and other regulations. It shall ... provide a forum for the discussion of College affairs." RGA is thus intended and stipulated to operate within the College only, and in matters of College interest. It is a non-political organ, except in the sphere of intra-college politics.

These limitations on RGA are reasonable, in the light of its mandatory membership. A political group states its views and individuals are free to join or not. Only as absolutely unanimous college referendum might empower RGA to make a political statement or to support a political cause. And if a statement were to be made in the name of "the majority of RGA," the public would ignore the qualification, and identify the statement with "Radcliffe." Many students who would object to mandatory membership in the Young Democrats or Young Republicans would see no objection to mandatory support of civil rights, which they see as a moral issue. They realize that political views may vary, but they judge moral issues blanketly. However, there is a distinction between moral and legal, as between political and legal. In a legal context, one can judge by a moral only in so far as that moral is law. And one is free to hold and to voice any opinions not detrimental to the security of the country (which is a touchy business). Political groups unify people who have similar views, but one is not required to follow one or another of these groups or views. One is required only to obey the law. In the present case, rather than extending our ability to act by acting as a unit, we are in danger of losing our freedom to act as individuals. We have no need to empower RGA to declare us for the law of the land, and no right to impower it to declare us to be partisan.

RGA as a college governing body has some power to fix requirements for action within the College, as long as it stays within the sphere of college interest. It has no more right to force jurisdiction over our roles outside the College (taking political action in our name) than Berkeley has to force jurisdiction over extra-college action in an opposite manner (by refusing to permit outside matters to be considered on the campus).

RGA's power to act for all of us on one issue will give it the power to act on other, comparable ones. If it can take a stand on civil rights beyond the legal position, it can take a stand on other politics. For instance, given such power, RGA could have formally supported Johnson over Goldwater in the last election by a referendum or RGA vote.

We come to College for a variety of educational and social reasons; however, we do not come for political reasons. Nor do we come to join a forced partisanship." Politics has its place in our lives, but not in our College.

For the benefit of those who become incensed by what they see as merely personal views, the signers of this letter are supporters of civil rights, SNCC, LBJ, academic freedom in Tougaloo, Miss. and in Cambridge, Mass. Also, we are seniors who will not be affected personally by future trends in RGA. C. Sheridan Murphy '65   Caroline D. Warner '65