Radcliffe Referendum

I

Radcliffe students will cast their ballots in a referendum on college government. A complicated ballot essentially presents them with four alternatives:

* A vote for the first proposal (Part IA) would retain the Radcliffe Government Association Constitution, by-laws, and procedure as they are now set forth in the Redbook.

Proposal Part IB would replace RGA with the Radcliffe Undergraduate Association. RUA would differ from RGA in that no member of the Administration would participate. RUA would also establish a bi-cameral student government. The Association itself would include all Radcliffe undergraduates, who would elect five officers.

An association meeting could be called at any time during the year by the president of RUA, by a petition of 25 members of the Association or by vote of the Undergraduate Council. Routine business would be carried on by the Undergraduate Council--composed of the five officers of the Association, the presidents of each House, and the three House representatives on the Radcliffe Joint Committee.

* The third proposal, the Radcliffe Union of Students, would not differ from RUA in its basic structure. However, it includes a clause which would provide for sole jurisdiction over changes in the student government. According to the constitution of both RGA and RUA, the College Council has a veto over a change in the constitution. The Union also provides for four Radcliffe students to sit on the Radcliffe College Council, Radcliffe's equivalent to the Harvard Corporation. The students vote automatically "only on matters affecting students directly." On other matters they would vote only by majority approval of the Radcliffe College Council.

* Part II and Part III of the referendum present two proposals of a more specific nature: Part II would set up a Joint Committee with five members from the administration and five student members. Part III "recommends" that students be allowed to sit on the Radcliffe Council, though it does not specify the number and voting power.

II

We urge that students vote for alternative A in Part I, which would retain RGA, that they vote in favor of Part II, to establish a Joint Committee, and that they vote against Part III, which asks for student representation on the College Council.

III

There are two basic sets of questions in this election. The first asks why we have a student government in the first place and what its function should be. The corollary then becomes how best to implement the decisions these first questions have suggested.

Radcliffe student government has never had a reputation as a vital and interesting body. But this was as true of RGA's precursors as it is of RGA. It cannot be argued that student apathy is purely due to defects in RGA's constitution. A far more likely explanation is that student government is not of overriding interest to most students. This is not necessarily a bad thing. One cannot blame students for feeling that it is more valuable to spend their time and thoughts on academic and curricular activities. The role of student government then becomes to ensure that students may pursue their diverse interests as freely as is possible.

A student government must take care of the chores most students do not want to bother with. It must also provide a way in which intelligent discussion and effective action can be taken by large numbers of students on important issues. The RGA, though by no means perfect, fulfills these requirements better than any of the other proposals.

There is one very good reason for voting against RUA: it does not allow the administration to voice its position. One of the more constructive results of the past months is the realization that communication between administration and Faculty has been poor to non-existent, and the further realization of the importance of such communication.

RUA does have certain advantages over RGA. Its bi-cameral structure makes it easier for students who are interested in the day-to-day government to bring forward ideas and proposals on specific issues and gives every student a voice in all major decisions. We urge that RGA consider revising its constitution to take advantage of this possibility.

The strongest argument against RUS is that it will not work at the present time. The College Council will probably not accept a student government which proposes to make its own rules. And it will definitely not allow student representation on the Council.

Though both proposals made in the RUS constitution are probably desirable, a head-on collision between students and Administration could only have destructive effects. Radcliffe students have a far greater chance of being heard if they continue to talk to the administration in modulated tones than if they shout defiance, or even turn their backs on the administration completely.