WAC and RUS Ignore Clubs' Elitism

TO THE EDITORS OF THE CRIMSON:

So according to WAC organizer Francie Walton '94, boycotting final clubs to make them admit women "is a logical step toward eliminating elitism." By doubling the clubs' membership and support base among students? What does WAC consider the logical second step in the campaign against final club elitism? Why do I get the feeling they won't be out there hunting up poor students to punch once they get their own feet in the door? According to Walton, the freshly selected female upper crust "would take with them their concerns about elitism." It seems to me that their only concern about the elite is whether they're in it.

And once again the members of RUS have taken it upon themselves to speak for all undergraduate women without making the slightest effort (such as a survey or a special meeting devoted to the issue) to solicit our opinions. "We support the boycott...because it is an opportunity to bring campus women together." I'm sure the image of proud young women banding together to win the right to exclude each other from wealthy social clubs would warm Gloria Steinem's heart. I don't know about you, but that's not my idea of sisterhood, baby.

By the way, the acronym WAC has already been claimed by a national organization with a much more legitimate claim to the cause of women's rights. The Women's Action Coalition compiles an annual book of statistics on the status of women in our society. Page 59 of the 1993 edition gives the following information on women's earning power, from the U.S. Department of Labor:

"Based on annual earnings, for every $1 of a man's pay, a woman could expect to earn:

in 1955: 64 cents

in 1960: 61 cents

in 1992: 66 cents."

Why don't all you wacky WACs do something about that? Devin Agran '93-95