MORE 1-1-2

To the Editors of The Crimson:

Recent attacks on the 1-1-2 plan do not acknowledge the real issues and are rather unfair to its advocates. First, those who support 1-1-2 have done a thankless service in identifying the particular problems of sophomore year. David Riesman's thoughtful treatment of these in the letter at issue have been totally ignored. Opponents of 1-1-2 need to show that (as I believe) a separate sophomore year would on balance meet these problems no better than the Houses do or can do.

Second, opponents of 1-1-2 have not adequately faced the financial constraints that make it attractive. The fact that it is probably the most economical option is obviously not the best reason to adopt it. But in a time of worsening finances, it is imperative and advisable to consider costs and financing in comparing proposals. Thus four year houses might be attractive, but they are fiscally unrealistic as so far presented. Riesman should not be attacked for asserting the unhappy importance of trade-offs and priorities.

Third, the present debate on sex ratios at the Quad has not faced the material fact that maintenance of the 1:1 ratio there now demands that a greater proportion of women than men be assigned to the Quad against their will. To the credit of the summer housing debates, one issue about the Quad was: "Can the disproportionate unhappy assignments of women there be justified?" At present an even sex ratio is coercively imposed at the Quad despite the fact that if women's actual preference were taken into account this could naturally lead to a 1:1 ratio in one or more River Houses. In this sense it is correct to say that a vocal part of the Quad community is forcing its wishes on others, particularly many women, who though they agree with the idea of a 1:1 ratio prefer it to be achieved elsewhere than at the Quad. The attacks on David Riesman for pointing this out are exceeded in savagery only by their peculiar failure to meet his arguments.

Now, if one or more Houses are to have an even sex ratio there are good reasons why these should be Quad Houses, which have traditions that might otherwise be lost. However, assigning women to the Quad must really be contingent on whether they want to live there. This can be affected by upgrading the Quad physically and educationally. Yet even with his needed change, I doubt that women will choose the Quad in sufficient numbers to voluntarily support a Quad-wide ratio of 1:1. In this case, the number of students actually choosing a 1:1 ratio should determine how many Houses maintain that ratio. One or two Quad Houses with an even ratio would be a realistic and desirable goal. I do not understand how anyone can continue to advocate a Quad-wide ratio of 1:1 in the face of overwhelming evidence that at best only one or two such Houses can be maintained without coercion. --Chris Leman   Task Force on College Life