Five years ago Radcliffe abolished compulsory physical training for freshmen. President Bunting, in explaining the new policy, said that "even freshmen should be treated as adults." Those who direct Harvard's freshmen apparently feel otherwise.

The PT requirement is annoying not because it insists upon exercise but because it demands adherence to rules in the same paternalistic spirit as compulsory chapel or class attendance. PT has in fact become more flexible in recent years. Still, the system is an insult and inconvenience to students, not to mention the administrative burden of keeping tabulations on each freshman and sending warnings to laggards until the end of their sophomore year.

The Administration argues that the freshmen and House intramural programs would both suffer greatly if PT were made voluntary. But most freshmen have either been in compulsory programs in secondary school or have participated voluntarily. It seems implausible that an additional year could convince them of the values of athletics and exercise. It seems more likely that Harvard could do better to remove the air of compulsory nuisance surrounding freshman sports.

At least in Radcliffe's experience, the abolition of PT has improved, not weakened, the athletic program. According to Mary G. Paget, co-ordinator of recreational activities, there has been an expansion of sports offered, as well as an overall increase in the level of both skill and participation.

In addition -- and this was also true at Radcliffe -- the PT requirement loads facilities with people who do not wish to participate at the expense of those who do. Why force Harvard's admittedly limited facilities on those who do not want them?