Don't Turn RUS Into A Watered-Down UC

The Radcliffe Union of Students (RUS) allows men to participate in discussions and receive grant money, but it does not allow men to vote--and with good reason. While the input men provide is valuable and their attendance at meetings is welcomed, the people who ultimately have power over the decisions should be the students with the greatest stake in the outcome.

Women at Harvard-Radcliffe have the greatest stake in the outcome in part because they form a distinct group within the community and have distinct needs. The staff fails to recognize this fact, which stems from two main reasons: Radcliffe's history and current gender inequality.

The 1977 Merger Agreement between Harvard and Radcliffe officially enrolled all Radcliffe students at Harvard, "with all the rights and privileges accorded Harvard College enrollment." Yet today, 17 years later, the 1994 Handbook for Student asserts that "Harvard College has endeavored to ensure that women undergraduates enjoy the same opportunities here as are available to men."

Harvard admits it is still trying--but it has not fully succeeded. That women have yet to be accepted in the same numbers as men is merely one example.

Radcliffe College worked and continues to work to provide rights and privileges to its students at Harvard-Radcliffe and for women in society at large. As long as Radcliffe exists, it is free to charter a governing body of students who share its goals. Its students are the women of Harvard-Radcliffe, and until its students are male, the members of its student government will be solely female.

Furthermore, if men were to pay and vote, they would form a constituency which could, rightly, ask that their needs be considered too. The result would be a watered-down Undergraduate Council (which is predominantly, disproportionately male).

Certainly, once full gender equality is reached, there would be little need for Radcliffe and RUS. But, unfortunately, we have yet to reach that point.