To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

The February 20 issue of the CRIMSON contained a short article on adverse criticism of the new RGA constitution. It gave a somewhat distorted and uninformed review of the opposition. As president of Briggs Hall, I feel a certain responsibility to give a clearer explanation of why we voted against the constitution.

SGA asked all presidents to have a dorm meeting to discuss the proposed constitution. A member of the constitutional committee was present to answer any questions. The main objections which were voiced during the meeting concerned the limitation of Board of Hall, the unwieldy size of the proposed legislature, and various minor technicalities. The discussion lasted an hour, a fact which shows anything but apathy, which brings me to the reason for this letter.

Your article stated that our vote was negative because we are apathetic--apathetic towards SGA probably, but not without reason. The dormitory is the only thing which is peculiarly Radcliffe. Academic and social life are centered around Harvard. Therefore, those activities which go beyond the dorm level seem and, I think are, meaningless. SGA is such an activity. In the past, we have been asked to vote for people we've never heard of for offices in an organization which seems to have no significance in our lives. We've been asked to vote on referendums which are usually approved because, again, they have no relevance or don't seem to have any relevance to us. This is Radcliffe apathy and this is the apathy which voted for, not against, the new constitution.

If the student body is so enthusiastic about this new constitution, why aren't there more people running for office? Why aren't more people from the present SGA who are eligible running? I, for one, shudder to think of the haphazard voting I'm going to have to do when confronted with a choice (assuming there's more than one person running) between two people whom I don't know and have to arbitrarily assume that one of them is better than the other. For the amount of power and responsibility involved in the offices as they are defined in the new constitution, it is unfair to ask the students to make their choices on such shaky foundations. Joanne M. Pearson '63.