Last Tuesday, members of Quincy House voted to overrule a House Committee decision to contribute twenty-five dollars to the John Perdew Fund. Although the vote was ostensibly on the question of whether or not to give money, it was in reality aimed at establishing the proper use of House money. As such, it should not be construed as a vote against civil rights or the Perdew fund.
In fact, the Quincy House referendum has, by implication, clarified the proper domain of House Committee action. House cards are sold to acquire revenue for house activities. By appropriating money for political purposes, a House committee risks a boycott on House cards. Students will not volunteer money which a House committee or even a House majority may use for unspecified political causes. At least under the present system purchasers of House cards know that the use of their money will be clearly confined to activities.
Political or charitable contributions should remain an individual's decision. But the Quincy House vote in no way obscures the merit of giving fiscal aid to an individual who has made a much more difficult decision.