Petering Out

Since 1969, when Harvard and Radcliffe officially consummated their marriage, the major problem facing Harvard and Radcliffe administrators--and the Harvard-Radcliffe community as a whole--has been sorting out the ambiguities of the non-merger agreement.

Loosely-defined at best, the agreement between the colleges left many people in a state of flux over what was what, and who controlled whom.

One of the problems raised by the non-merger has been what to do with Radcliffe athletics. The future of the 'Cliffe program, long handicapped by limited resourced and antiquated facilities, was further complicated by the uncertainty of its future under the fusion of Harvard and Radcliffe activities.

This week, the Radcliffe athletics dilemma reached a significant milestone when Harvard Director of Athletics Robert B. Watson '37 was instructed to study the problems of providing equal opportunity for men and women in athletics, in preparation for assuming full control of both athletics departments.

The equalization of athletic opportunities in the University is a question that has been long neglected. For years Radcliffe has operated with severe ff-nanciallimitations and has lived a distinctly second-rate existence within the structure of the University as a whole.

Radcliffe athletic teams have had to scrimp on expenses and make do with ssbstandard facilities. Radcliffe's crew, for example, national champions last year, funded its activities largely through independent contributions because the Radcliffe athletic department had insufficient resources to back a nationally-competitive program.

Since the merger agreement became official, Radcliffe athletics have improved. In the last year budget allocations for Radcliffe sports have increased rapidly, and steps have been taken to provide Radcliffe women with improved facilities in addition to renovating Harvard facilities to accomodate women.

But even with these advances, Radcliffe athletics still occupy a distinctly inferior position. And the successes of Radcliffe athletes, achieved despite the severe limitations of the department, grow in magnitude when viewed in light of the handicaps of being an athlete at Radcliffe.

The official merger of tee two departments is of tremendous importance to University athletics. But merger, without improvement of the situation as it exists with regard to Radcliffe, is a futile gesture. What is needed is a concerted effort on the part of the Harvard athletic department to place high priority on the improvement of the Radcliffe program.

Radcliffe women pay identical fees as men for the right to attend Harvard. And they should be entitled to the same benefits--athletic or otherwise--that male undergraduates receive.

Watson has been instructed to investigate the problem of inequity in athletic opportunity. And he has been asked to come up with some solutions. We urge him to undertake this task, with utmost seriousness, and to deal with the situation fullly and comprehensively.

Far too long Radcliffe athletics have been shunted off into a corner to muddle along as best they can. We hope that the merger of the two departments will implement a clear break with this pathetic tradition.