Council Thwarts RGA: No Parietal Extensions

The Radcliffe College Council, the School's administrative board, feels that any extension of Radcliffe's parietal hours "would not be in the best interests of the students or the college."

Mrs. Helen H. Gilbert, acting president of Radcliffe, yesterday told the RGA legislature that the council considers the present 25 hour limit "adequate for most of the students" and is "unanimously opposed to any increase."

After Mrs. Gilbert's announcement, the legislature voted to table a motion that each dormitory be allowed to determine number of parietal hours rather than being subject to the current RGA limit, so as to make allowance for the differences between individual dormitories."

In a heated discussion after the meeting, Lois R. Goodman '66, the author of the original motion, termed the Council's decision a "terrible blow to student self government." "The proposal wasn't given fair chance to be argued on its own ," she charged.

The motion to table was suggested as means of extricating the legislature from a procedural dilemma.

If RGA had passed Miss Goodman's motion, its action would have been meaningless, since the RGA constitution stipulates that "college officers may officers may establish as they deem necessary and such administrative rules take precedence over by the Association."

Although there was some feeling that the motion should be voted down "because she Council would veto it anyway," Ann Swidler '66 pointed out that this "would not provide a solution. We don't want it co appear as if the legislature is simply opposed to increasing parietal hours," she said "especially when our decision has already been made for us."

After the meeting several students expressed disapproval of the Council's action.

"They put us in an impossible situation," one girl said. "We were given a choice between passing a meaningless motion and going on record as opposing an increase in parietal hours. Tabling the proposal was obviously the only solution."

The motion to table was suggested as means of extricating the legislature from a procedural dilemma.

If RGA had passed Miss Goodman's motion, its action would have been meaningless, since the RGA constitution stipulates that "college officers may officers may establish as they deem necessary and such administrative rules take precedence over by the Association."

Although there was some feeling that the motion should be voted down "because she Council would veto it anyway," Ann Swidler '66 pointed out that this "would not provide a solution. We don't want it co appear as if the legislature is simply opposed to increasing parietal hours," she said "especially when our decision has already been made for us."

After the meeting several students expressed disapproval of the Council's action.

"They put us in an impossible situation," one girl said. "We were given a choice between passing a meaningless motion and going on record as opposing an increase in parietal hours. Tabling the proposal was obviously the only solution."

If RGA had passed Miss Goodman's motion, its action would have been meaningless, since the RGA constitution stipulates that "college officers may officers may establish as they deem necessary and such administrative rules take precedence over by the Association."

Although there was some feeling that the motion should be voted down "because she Council would veto it anyway," Ann Swidler '66 pointed out that this "would not provide a solution. We don't want it co appear as if the legislature is simply opposed to increasing parietal hours," she said "especially when our decision has already been made for us."

After the meeting several students expressed disapproval of the Council's action.

"They put us in an impossible situation," one girl said. "We were given a choice between passing a meaningless motion and going on record as opposing an increase in parietal hours. Tabling the proposal was obviously the only solution."

Although there was some feeling that the motion should be voted down "because she Council would veto it anyway," Ann Swidler '66 pointed out that this "would not provide a solution. We don't want it co appear as if the legislature is simply opposed to increasing parietal hours," she said "especially when our decision has already been made for us."

After the meeting several students expressed disapproval of the Council's action.

"They put us in an impossible situation," one girl said. "We were given a choice between passing a meaningless motion and going on record as opposing an increase in parietal hours. Tabling the proposal was obviously the only solution."