Emily Post died the other day; the demise of this lady high executioner of the uncouth marks a final expiration--Victoria is dead, long live the twentieth century. The time has come to talk of Radcliffe women being allowed to have men in their rooms more often than the allotted and tea-soaked twice a year.

First, if these ladies can be trusted in Harvard Houses, they can be trusted anywhere. Objections to the proposal for moral reasons can be dismissed on the grounds that morals cannot be legislated now that sign-outs are here. On the same principle it is unwise to lock the barn door once the mare has fled.

Radcliffe deans may veto the suggestion because they think the girls' bedrooms are too small and too messy for entertaining. They may easily point out how unfitting it would be for girls in curlers and wrappers to wander around the corridors of an open house. Further, some girls may object that men spoil the peace and quiet.

From a sample poll, The Crimson deduced that most girls and all Harvard men favor the following modest proposal: twice a week, Wednesday evening and Sunday afternoon respectively, exclusive of reading periods and other dour situations, Radcliffe girls should agree either to tidy their rooms for guests or to keep their doors shut, and to keep out of the corridors while in a state of undress; in return, those girls with male guests should keep their voices lowered and their manners impeccable.

Radcliffe is called a liberal college. Yet Wellesley, Bryn Mawr, Sarah Lawrence, Bennington, and other institutions have less stringent regulations about parietal hours than does Radcliffe. Each house at Radcliffe, in co-operation with its head resident, should be allowed the choice to vote for or against "open" open house.