PARIETALS

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

"One, on God's side, is a majority." That position was held by Master Stewart at the last meeting of the Committee on the Houses. As representatives of an overwhelming majority of Harvard undergraduates, we cannot claim to share in his distinction, but then, as the spokesman for an overwhelming majority of the Masters who refused to listen, Master Gill cannot claim it either.

His position on parietals unfortunately fails to distinguish between the overall philosophy of parietal restriction and the details of that issue. There is a big difference between "major changes" and major changes. The Masters and Deans made an adjustment in the fall and are now using that as an excuse for refusing to consider changes in philosophy.

On the larger question of parietals there are really only four positions: 1) No women in student rooms; 2) Women limited essentially to one part of the week; 3) Women allowed at all times except overnight; 4) No restrictions at all. The change that was made last fall to extend Friday night parietals was a welcome adjustment within framework (2). For many reasons which are totally independent of this change, 308 Lowell House members have petitioned the Committee for a change in philosophy. Many of those who voted felt that a more natural attitude would prevail if the restrictions were removed during the week. This is not exactly accomplished by creating a two-night weekend to replace the former one-night weekend.

Other issues were similarly ignored by the Friday night extension. Adjustment is not change; they are independent issues. Contrary to what Master Gill has stated, the Masters and Deans have not introduced changes this year, and their refusal to consider such changes at the recent meeting represents at least an avoidance of responsibility.

We would also like to question the novel idea that the 20 members of the HUC are "more representative" than the 2,000 students who recently voted on the question of parietals. We are glad, however, that the Masters and Deans are aware of the existence of at least the 20 students who constitute the HUC. We hope that they will still be aware of this body early next fall (say, the first week of school) should the HUC approve and present to them the same proposal that Lowell House submitted this year.

Finally, we would like to urge that the Masters and Deans have almost certainly destroyed by their decision the more responsible modes of action open to students. In distributing the Lowell House proposal we were constantly asked, "Will it work?" "Will it be effective?" "Aren't you wasting your time?" 308 Lowell House members and countless others throughout the College cannot help but be convinced that the choice is now between drastic action or no results. Charles S. Peskin '68   John R. Gersh '68   Neal P. Katz '68   John D. Kennedy '68