Mockery on the Name Harvard?

Summer School rules are rigid, ridiculous, redundant, regrettable, and outrageous without being effective. They should be changed.

Radcliffe social rules have been compromised in so condescending a manner that it would appear unbecoming a Summer School by the name of Harvard. As it now stands, the rigid philosophy of the Summer School negates the sense of responsibility that Radcliffe encourages in its students, and deprives Harvard of introducing a wide range of girls to the opportunity of budgeting their own freedom.

The social rules are as follows:

* Summer School girls, except those under 18, must be in their dorms by 1 a.m. on Sundays through Thursdays and by 2 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays.

* There are no parietal hours in women's dorms, and common rooms are used infrequently.

* Each girl is allowed three late nights, with the previous permission of her proctor (who issues her a late pass), during the 8-week summer session.

* Both blanket parental permission and the proctor's specific permission are needed for an overnight.

Lock-Out

But although the rules are explicit, they are hardly effective. Dorms are locked at 1 a.m., and if a girl is late returning, she must get a University policeman to let her in. The policeman takes note of her late return and forwards the information to the Deans. The result of the rules is that girls who are going to be a little late are tempted to stay out all night instead of being liable to disciplinary action. Staying out all night is perfectly safe, because there are no room checks during the night and no one is any the wiser if you return when the dorm opens in the morning.

In comparison, Radcliffe rules, during the regular year, are utopian:

* After freshman year, girls are allowed to sign an estimated hour of return until 8:15 a.m. without obtaining permission.

* Overnights can also be obtained by writing your own ticket.

* Girls are given keys to the dorm so they may return at any hour without embarrassment.

Julian T. Baird, Summer School dean of men, brings up a number of objections to the liberalization of Summer School social rules. To begin with there are practical reasons: not being able to supervise parietal hours because of an inadequate staff and the absence of bell desks. Baird also hints that any liberalization would bring complaints from angry mothers who want to be sure that their offspring are safe from the temptations of college life and can be reached at a moment's notice.

These objections are straightforward enough and could probably be solved by the Summer School with a little effort and imagination. Proctors could be asked to supervise parietals in their dorms two or three times a week; bell desks are not an over-whelming expense. Mothers could be forewarned that their daughters would live under Radcliffe rules and, after a good look, they could probably be convinced that 'Cliffies are none the worse for wear.

Unleashed

The other-arguments Baird advances are some-what more subtle and interesting. During the year, Harvard and Radcliffe students have enough time to "learn the ropes" and develop a sense of continuity. During the summer, girls do not have this sense of continuity and probably don't feel the restraints from "peer group sanctions" either. The result of a liberal policy would be that a group of relatively sheltered girls would arrive at Harvard and be unleashed. They wouldn't know how to use this freedom properly, Baird adds.

But Baird points to the School's admissions system as the crucial factor in a debate as to how liberal social rules could be. "Harvard has a very strict selection system, and we know what kind of people we have here and what to expect from them," Baird says. The girls here during the summer are apt to be less responsible with their freedom than Radcliffe girls, he explains.

Finally, Baird asserts, the Summer School doesn't want to become involved with "legislating morals." We have to "play Radcliffe during the summer and we're not at all used to it," he admits. "It's just easier this way, and any reform of the rules would involve a number of problems we don't want to get involved in."

Baird's objections are obviously condescending toward the student who comes here during the summer, and although the "I go here during the winter" buttons show that this snobbism it is not entirely absent among the Harvard students themselves, the Faculty cannot afford to have this outlook if it is to make any significant contribution to these girls' educations.

Conservative Philosophy

Baird admits that the Harvard Summer School's philosophy is "fairly conservative." But condescension is a greater sin than conservation. Ten years ago the summer session was more like a country club than a school, Baird said, pointing out the dangers of social freedom. "We used to go around offering section men salaries to teach during the summer," he says. The teaching standards have been improving rapidly since then, he claims, and academics are the primary concern.

After all these objections, what is the case for exposing "unexposed" girls to the vicissitudes of liberty?

Harvard has always been proud to consider itself an experimental college, and yet seems to lose its initiative during the long hot summer months. It appears that the Summer School rules were made with little reflection--a surprising lack of resourcefulness on behalf of the Summer School administration.

Isn't Baird simply saying that we can't continue Radcliffe's liberal policies at the Summer School because the girls aren't made of the same stuff as 'Cliffies? Isn't he simply saying that the effort to give summer girls a sense of responsibility is just "too far to walk?"

Harvard, even during the summer session, can afford to retain its identity as a school which attempts to foster a sense of social responsibility along with high academic standards. One does not exclude the other.

Social rules are always a topic of debate in any university context, and the private colleges will always retain the final trump card of being able to say, "if you don't like our rules, go elsewhere." But this ultimate retreat has not been espoused by the Summer School, and this in itself testifies that the administration is still open to suggestions.

It is detrimental to the Summer School to condescend either on an academic or social level toward its summer guests. Simply because they don't go to Harvard or Radcliffe is no reason to convict them a priori of stupidity or irresponsibility.

In the case of academics, it is clear that if you demand little of a Summie you will get less, and if you demand a great deal you will get more. But as to social regulations the point is more debatable. If these girls were able to live for a summer under Radcliffe rules--which, after all, are not total license--they would go away from their summer school experience with an invaluable lesson. They would have learned to use the freedom they never encountered in their own university framework.

Fair Game

Harvard could be the first to eliminate many of the restrictions which these girls should be learning to impose on themselves. As it is now, the social rules replace moral responsibilities which otherwise would fall directly on the student. Many girls feel that whatever they can get away with above and beyond the rules is fair game.

There still remains one important criticism: is eight weeks too short a time for the girls to acclimatize to the new rules and develop a new code of ethics? These eight weeks may give a number of girls their first confrontation with the question of what to do with their freedom--a question they are bound to face eventually in the real world.

Do Baird's objections boil down to a conservative philosophy for the Summer School, or are they simply a matter of administrative expediency? The Administration would do well to re-think its position, hopefully with an experimental attitude, and ask itself if Radcliffe rules are really too demanding for the Summer School student.