Committee Ruling On Voting Rights Triggers Dudley House Controversy

The members of Dudley House appear headed for a protracted fight over the issue of voting rights for persons who do not hold house dues cards.

This fall the House Committee amended the House Constitution to bar members who do not hold cards from voting in House elections. The cards, which are sold by the House Committee for $2, permit members to use the house game room and television set. Only 78 members hold them.

Stephen P. Dolberg '65, president of the House Committee, explained that the committee hoped to encourage sales of the cards by the ruling. He added that "if members didn't want to participate in house activities, they shouldn't have a say in them."

Housing Discrimination

Eric Pepper '67, a House Committeeman, charged yesterday that the ruling discriminated in favor of residents of Wigglesworth Hall, who use the house facilities more than the married students, commuters, and the residents of cooperative houses.

Pepper pointed out that 80 per cent of the house members had been disenfranchised by the ruling, and said he would present a petition with the names of more than half of the members calling for repeal of the ruling at tomorrow's meeting of the committee.

Thomas E. Crooks '49, Master of Dudley House, said last night that any limitation on the number of eligible voters was undesirable, but that he thought the house committee had acted from "laudable motives."

Crooks said he welcomed the "crowd of opposition to the ruling," and that he hoped the outcome would be "a more practical way to elect the Committee." He added that the Committee had been "hardworking and loyal, but largely frustrated."

Pepper said yesterday that he hoped his petition would force the House Committee to reverse its ruling or to sponsor a referendum on the issue. Dolberg indicated that if the petition contained enough names, he would permit a referendum, and would probably allow members without cards to vote in it. He expressed doubt, however, that the opposition forces could muster enough votes to overturn the amendment.