A Dissenting Opinion Complete Coeducation

( The opinion expressed here dissents from the editorial position printed yesterday on page 2 of the CRIMSON which supported the RUS coed residency plan. )

THERE is no clearer manifestation of the white, male, upper-class, Anglo-Saxon prejudice of Harvard's ruling elite than its open and proudly flaunted prejudice against women in admissions policy. And though it would be difficult to argue that a bright woman forced to go to, say, Vassar instead of Radcliffe is as oppressed as a Laotian peasant woman strafed by the U. S. Air Force, or a black woman or man in this country deprived of any sort of decent education at all, it is clear that a 50-50 admissions policy by next year is a cause worth fighting for.

But the RUS coed plan, which would deprive members of four of 13 Houses of a coed experience in order to create a higher ratio in the others, is a selfishly conceived proposal which would, if anything, delay the day of true equality for women at Harvard. (And it is important to remember that it is not the women currently worried about living arrangements who are the most discriminated against-it's the ones who didn't get in the first place.)

Two types of arguments have been forwarded against the CHUL proposal that all Houses go coed at whatever ratio might be necessary. One is a tactical argument that by relieving every House of the onus of an all-male existence, the CHUL plan will dissipate all pressure for increased female enrollment; the other is that a 4-1 or 5-1 or 6-1 ratio is genuinely an unsatisfactory living arrangement for women.

The first argument is a member of that family of arguments that finds its logical extension and parody in the rankings of SDS: a quick and isolated end to this specific war in Southeast Asia is bad because it will relieve discontent against the government; economic depressions are good because they raise class consciousness among the starving workers. But even accepting the validity of such arguments, this specific example is inconsistent; it works both ways. One year ago a CRIMSON editorial argued that all Houses should go coed, for the very reason of forcing everyone to be aware of the imbalance in Harvard admissions. I feel this argument still holds. Surely no push for 50-50 will be successful without the backing of Harvard women, yet the RUS plan would leave Harvard women largely shielded from both results of Harvard's sexist admissions policy-the increased difficulty for women of getting in, and the problems of living in a predominantly male social environment. If misery breeds militance, the RUS plan will leave pressure for 50-50 to 1400 militant men in Eliot, Kirkland, Mather and Leverett, who are more likely to fight for another housing assignment than to be suddenly inspired as to the deprivation of women.

THE SECOND argument in favor of the RUS coed plan is that the higher ratios of men to women necessary for complete coeducation inflict too great a hardship on the women involved. Surely no one would deny that a 1-1 or 2-1 ratio is preferable for all concerned-and especially the women-to higher ratios. But how much preferred is it? Is the difference between 2-1 and 4-1 for the people in coed Houses greater than the difference between 4-1 and 1-0 for those stuck in Houses which can't go coed in order to achieve the lower ratios elsewhere? It's impossible, of course, to say. But the high ratios this year-and the even higher ones last Spring-did not deter many more women than there was room for from trying to move from the 3-2 ratio at Radcliffe to the Harvard Houses; so the disadvantages of a 4-1 ratio can at least be overcome by certain physical and geographic factors, and therefore are not as near the infinite as the RUS president-who lives in Dunster-has hysterically suggested. Neither the Harvard Housemasters nor the Radcliffe deans have reported any great discontent from women who won last year's lottery and moved down to Harvard.

The poll RUS uses to justify its demands is, like most polls in House dining rooms, unlikely to win prizes for efficiency. The categories are confusing, results of men at Radcliffe were mixed with those of women, and only 55 per cent responded. Further, the results are meaningless: Of course women would prefer a 2-1 ratio in the current coed Houses. Not only would this leave unchanged their chances of moving to a Harvard House while achieving a preferable ratio wherever they ended up, but it would also vastly improve their chances of moving to the more desirable Houses such as Adams, Lowell and Dunster instead of less popular ones such as Leverett and Mather.

One possible arrangement might be to acknowledge that Radcliffe freshmen are already a part of the House system and to allow them to enter the House pool along with upperclassmen. This would provide a 3-1 ratio in all the Houses.

The issue of housing is, of course, not nearly as important as fighting to end Harvard's sexist admissions. (Which itself is not as important as other issues which come to mind.) But meanwhile, it's still unfair to deprive almost half the student population of what has become a major aspect of the undergraduate intellectual experience, for the greater convenience of the rest.