Why does the University have parietal rules?

There are two possible answers. First, that the University believes that its reputation would be damaged by the frequent sight of women emerging from University dormitories late at night, or by scandals of a more serious nature.

Second, that the University has discovered the secrets of an absolute moral code; and that, being in loco parentis, it is therefore obliged to impose the observance of this code upon its students.

Oliviously the first of these reasons is legitimate. The University cannot afford to lose its reputation mothers would stop sending their sons, and portly graduates their money, to a proven den of iniquity. The second reason is, at least, debatable.

If it really is fear of damaging its reputation that motivates Harvard then why have different rules for the College and the Graduate School's? A scandal is going to have its repercussions no matter where it takes place; a stream of women emerging from Lowell House at midnight or one o'clock is no less a potential reputation-breaker than a stream of women emerging at midnight from the graduates center. Yet the parietal rules for the new Graduate Center allow the men to entertain chaperoned women in their rooms up to midnight (1 a.m. over the weekend), while the College rules allow chaperoned women only until 7 p.m. (8 p.m. on weekends.).

This inconsistency indicates that it is not primarily a desire to protect its reputation that motivates the University. Apparently the motive is a solicitude for the students under its wing. This is borne out by the discrepancy between undergraduate and graduate rules: a solicitous parent is more concerned over and strict with his younger children.

In other words, it can be claimed that, though the policy of different rules is inconsistent as regards the public reputation of Harvard, it is really consistent as regards what might be called the private reputation. It can be argued that it does make a difference to the parents and friends of the students whether the stream of girls we are talking about comes from Lowell where the average student is about 19 years old, or the Graduate Center where the average student is perhaps four years older.

While this argument is reasonable when applied to freshmen, it is of dubious value when applied to upperclass undergraduates. Where the Administration draws a line between undergraduates and graduates, we would draw a line between freshmen and all other students. The freshman has just escaped the more rigid discipline of the school and the home; he is likely to succumb to the heady influence of freedoms which are perfectly reasonable for the upperclassman. The University recognizes this fact by requiring him to do a certain amount of exercise, by taking attendance at classes, and in several other ways. But, while the University relaxes these stricter requirements when the freshman becomes a sophomore, it does not relax the parietal regulations appreciably.

In drawing the line where it does the University ignores one of the most important of Harvard traditions: that a student must make his own way with a minimum of paternalistic governance.

The reasons that make it possible for graduate students to entertain women until midnight should make it possible for undergraduate upperclassmen to enjoy the same limited freedom.