On Off-Off

On Monday the Radcliffe College Council voted to allow any and every senior the option of living in non-college housing and paying 270 dollars for college services. This is sensible indeed, the only sensible solution to this lengthy and angry debate.

In the past only a few seniors selected at random were given permission to live "off-off". It is not surprising that Cliffies resented the materialistic tone of this policy. Many felt that though the house system may have been pleasant during their first two years, they now wanted to choose their own life style. It was an offense to their intelligence that the administration did not seem to feel they could make a competent choice.

There were more concrete reasons for dissatisfaction with house living. The overcrowded dorms were hardly the ideal place to write a thesis. And, with the building of the fourth House, the argument that Radcliffe could not afford to lose the income lost credence--clearly the Administration's commitment to the house system was philosophical not financial.

Not all of next year's senior class will opt for leaving. But along with the fourth House completion, the new rule will uncrowd the dorms, making life more pleasant for all Cliffies.

The one controversial feature of the new plan is the $270 fee. Mrs. Bunting herself has admitted that the result may be to put off-campus living out of the range of the less wealthy and thus create de facto discrimination. Wealthier students were once assigned the better rooms, and that system shouldn't be unintentionally revived.

Mrs. Bunting argues that resident students would otherwise be taxed to maintain facilities such as the library, the Radcliffe offices (the Dean's office, the financial aid office, the admissions office, etc.) which benefit all students. To prove her point, she gave a rough breakdown of college expenses at a Radcliffe Government Association meeting last semester. Critics remained unconvinced and one termed the explanation "a whitewash job."

It is fair that non-resident students should pay something for college facilities they use. Exactly how much and for what shouldn't be left un-examined by the RUS. "Radcliffe is squandering a lot of money on things lots of students don't want," sophomore Donna Lieberman has claimed. But critics haven't yet checked the budget to find whether their charges are valid. The RUS should also try to decide a set of fiscal priorities--for instance whether the relatively expensive athletics program should continue to be subsidized by all students, even though a relatively small percentage participate in it. Few other Radcliffe issues have aroused such passion as the housing debate. The hunger strike required to make student opinion clear to Administration and Council still is monument to the lack of communication between the two parts of the College.