Head Residents Differ Over Curfews

Reactions at Radcliffe to proposed abolition of curfew hours for upperclassmen range from "I think it's great" to "I think it's silly."

Surprisingly enough, many of the conservative replies come from the students themselves. "Abolishing the curfew might give Radcliffe an awfully bad reputation," said one junior, "not necessarily because of immoral behavior but because of what boys expect to go along with a great deal of freedom.

"Let's face it," she argued. "If you're signed out until five o'clock in the morning, you're not going to be standing out in the cold."

The one o'clock deadline can be awfully useful, another girl commented. "If you're out with a fink, it's a fine excuse for cutting the evening short," she said.

Roger N. Pierce, a head resident in Barnard Hall, declared himself very much in favor of the proposed liberalization. "Starting with the premise that mature people should be allowed freedom," he said, "one has to decide what are valid reasons for limiting that freedom.

"It is difficult to determine on an institutional basis who is mature," he admitted, but questioned the advisability of protecting the immature to the detriment of those able to act in a responsible way.

In Cabot Hall, David H. Evett disagreed. "The scholarly life is a discipline," he maintained, so that restrictions should not be regarded as inconsistent with college life.

"Radcliffe is probably able to carry off substantial revision and relaxation of the rules," Evett stated. But a girl given freedom is also given responsibility, he added, "the responsibility not to make a fool of herself.

"She must not abuse the privilege to the detriment of her studies, her honor, and the reputation of her college."

Mr. and Mrs. Jan L. Perkowski, in Moors, emphasized the importance of having college regulations meet the expectations of parents and conform to minimum standards of social behavior outside the college community.

"Everyone has to discover that there is an unwritten code," stated Perkowski. "It would be unwise to legislate as though rules in our society were not more stringent for women than they are for men," he added.

Commenting on the proposed system, Donald R. Brown, a head resident in Comstock, said that the new plan would give the student the responsibility for keeping her word, rather than merely following a set of rules. He said he was "very much in favor" of the prospective change.

Most head residents affirmed that chaperone rules were "ineffective" and "unenforceable," although not all would agree that they should be abolished.

Present regulations in the Radcliffe Redbook state that "when a student visits a man's apartment or room not in a college dormitory, another girl or couple should be present," and that "an older couple should be present at any private party which lasts later than 1 a.m." In addition, students are enjoined to observe the parietal rules of all men's dormitories.