Summer School rules are rigid, ridiculous, redundant, regrettable, and outrageous without being effective. They should be changed.

Radcliffe social rules have been compromised in so condescending a manner that it would appear unbecoming a Summer School by the name of Harvard. As it now stands, the rigid philosophy of the Summer School negates the sense of responsibility that Radcliffe encourages in its students, and deprives Harvard of introducing a wide range of girls to the opportunity of budgeting their own freedom.

The social rules are as follows:

* Summer School girls, except those under 18, must be in their dorms by 1 a.m. on Sundays through Thursdays and by 2 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays.

* There are no parietal hours in women's dorms, and common rooms are used infrequently.

* Each girl is allowed three late nights, with the previous permission of her proctor (who issues her a late pass), during the 8-week summer session.

* Both blanket parental permission and the proctor's specific permission are needed for an overnight.

Lock-Out

But although the rules are explicit, they are hardly effective. Dorms are locked at 1 a.m., and if a girl is late returning, she must get a University policeman to let her in. The policeman takes note of her late return and forwards the information to the Deans. The result of the rules is that girls who are going to be a little late are tempted to stay out all night instead of being liable to disciplinary action. Staying out all night is perfectly safe, because there are no room checks during the night and no one is any the wiser if you return when the dorm opens in the morning.

In comparison, Radcliffe rules, during the regular year, are utopian:

* After freshman year, girls are allowed to sign an estimated hour of return until 8:15 a.m. without obtaining permission.

* Overnights can also be obtained by writing your own ticket.

* Girls are given keys to the dorm so they may return at any hour without embarrassment.

Julian T. Baird, Summer School dean of men, brings up a number of objections to the liberalization of Summer School social rules. To begin with there are practical reasons: not being able to supervise parietal hours because of an inadequate staff and the absence of bell desks. Baird also hints that any liberalization would bring complaints from angry mothers who want to be sure that their offspring are safe from the temptations of college life and can be reached at a moment's notice.

These objections are straightforward enough and could probably be solved by the Summer School with a little effort and imagination. Proctors could be asked to supervise parietals in their dorms two or three times a week; bell desks are not an over-whelming expense. Mothers could be forewarned that their daughters would live under Radcliffe rules and, after a good look, they could probably be convinced that 'Cliffies are none the worse for wear.