RUS for Radcliffe

Last week Radcliffe students voted the Radcliffe Government Association out of existence. As neither the Radcliffe Undergraduate Association nor the Radcliffe Union of Students received a clear majority, students will have the chance to choose between these two alternatives today and tomorrow.

In structure the two are very similar. But their impact would be very different. The Undergraduate Association is essentially RGA revamped. Proponents claim that its smaller size (35 representatives to RGA's 60) will make student government less unwieldy and therefore more effective. This is not necessarily true. RGA's greatest weakness was its inability to transmit student opinion to the administration, despite Mrs. Bunting's religious attendance at the often deadly boring meetings. It is hard to see in what mysterious ways a smaller student government could enliven these meetings; it is impossible to see how a difference in size is gong to aid communication with the administration.

The Radcliffe Union of Students differs from the Association in that it claims sole jurisdiction over its own constitution (any changes in RUA have to be approved by the College Council), and that it seeks direct representation for students on the College Council, Radcliffe's ultimate decision-making body.

In last week's election students voted three to one for representation. There is no doubt that students do want some sort of voice on the Council. The question is whether RUS offers the right vehicle.

The RUS constitution provides for four student representatives at the Council's monthly meetings, two elected at large by the student body and two appointed by the RUS Undergraduate Council.

It is true that the present draft of the RUS Constitution fudges over one vital question--to what extent will students participate in Council meetings. As now drafted students would vote "only on matters directly concerning students." It does not specify whether students or administration are to define these matters. This question must be met with constructive thought by both administration and students, but it is a question which can be resolved.

The strongest argument against RUS is that it sets the stage for a full-dress battle, with wild-eyed students lined up against their more level-headed elders. An approach of this nature, opponents of RUS reason, is hardly likely to win over the Council. But this analysis has already proven itself wrong. RUS has the support of a number of very level-headed alumnae.

The four students on the Council will never be able to outvote their elders. So a vote for RUS is not necessarily a vote for confrontation politics, as was suggested by one student at last week's RGA meeting. It is a responsible expression of the need for more communication at all levels of the College. Both the students and the Council should take advantage of this opportunity.