The Mail 'SHIELD?'

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

In his dissenting opinion, "Complete Co-education," (March 3). Mike Kinsley states that the RUS plan would "shield" women from two facts: the increased difficulty for women of being admitted into the University and the problems of living in a predominantly male social environment.

Women need not continue being pawns, in this case to CHUL, to prove that there is sex discrimination at Harvard. Any woman who has ever applied to Radcliffe (those accepted and those rejected) can testify that she has indeed experienced overwhelming sex discrimination here. Is it not sexism when prospective students are told that they will attend the same classes, be taught by the same faculty, use the same facilities, and eventually receive the same diploma as male students, yet only 300 of them will be accepted as compared to 1200 men (Radcliffe's total enrollment)?

If the women accept the CHUL plan, how will it "shield" us from such truths? We have already experienced them! As for future female students, the ONLY way to "shield" them from these facts will be to allow them the right to an equal admissions policy. Women here need not endure such a housing decision to know what discrimination is.

One year of co-ed (I use the term cautiously) living hardly changes the fact that the entire Harvard community is and has been a male-dominated society since 1636-sheer numbers of male faculty members, teaching fellows, and students prove my point.

Mike Kinsley sums up his argument in declaring that it is not "fair" that men should be deprived of co-ed living because the women are busy working for equal admissions. Co-ed housing is the incidental problem here; equal admissions is precisely the point, and finally Radcliffe women are making a concerted group effort towards their goal. Let these men who are whimpering for women residents for their respective Houses turn their voices towards the Administration to support the basic missing link, equal admissions.