Protection and the RGA

Last spring the RGA, in a whirl of controversy, liberalized Radcliffe social rules to permit juniors and seniors to sign out to any time in the evening that they wished--even over-night--without the permission of the head resident. At the same time RGA abolished chaperonage regulations.

All of this was done on the revoluntionary premise that Cliffies, once they had had the experience of two two years at college behind them, were almost as well equipped to look out for themselves as Harvard freshmen.

Although Cliffies, unlike Yardlings, still had to account for their whereabouts, the RGA (which, it must be remembered, is strongly influenced by the Administration) justified this continued signout requirement as a safety precaution that did not contain any moral overtones. According to this theory, female undergraduates, due to certain physiological characteristics, confronted a more hazardous existence than their male counterparts. The signout system would, therefore, make it easier for housemothers, deans, and police officers to come to the aid of the damsels in distress.

Because physical protection was the only reason for the junior and senior signout requirement, accuracy of both time and destination in signouts was crucial. The new social rules, present a basic contradiction to anyone trying to enforce them. For a Cliffie to take advantage of the protection the sign-out system supposedly offered her, she would have to designate a realistic time of return. But because the rules required that she be back by the time she designated, the wrath of the dorm committee would descend if she were late. The logical way of avoiding any chance of punishment was to sign out every night until eight in the morning. But this, of course, defeated the purpose of the whole system.

Receptly President Bunting, as an Administration representative to the RGA, proposed that punishment for junior and senior lateness be eliminated. Upper-classmen would then indicate, as a "courtesy" to the dormitory, the time they expected, not promised, to return. This would mean that no one would go out to look for them if they did not show up.

In effect Mrs. Bunting's proposal has destroyed the myth of the signout as a safety precaution. Indeed, statistical evidence destroyed it long before she did. Not once in the history of Radcliffe has signout information led to any kind of rescue. The Cambridge police have always found out about a Cliffie mishap before the College Administration.

The new proposal, if enacted, would resolve the problem of rule enforcement and at the same time eliminate the only legitimate, even if hypothetical, reason for having signouts at all. The courtesy Mrs. Bunting speaks of as a justification cannot be true courtesy when it is compulsory. It is rather a vestige of the old paternalism which says that women, unlike men of the same age, must be watched, if not actually guarded.

There are very good reasons for a person of any sex to let someone else know where he is going for the evening. And it is certainly convenient for a Cliffie to have the dorm signout book to use for this purpose. But if for some reason she prefers not to do so, why should she have to? Society considers women just out of high school who have gone to work grown up enough to look after themselves.

Mrs. Bunting's proposal would make the new social rules workable in fact and should be supported. But hopefully it is an omen of even better things to come.