President Bok's statement advocating an increase in the Radcliffe-Harvard ratio moves in the right direction but skirts the central issue.

Bok's "2.5 to 1 statement" recommends enlarging the Radcliffe class from about 300 to 450 and cutting the Harvard class from 1200 to 1150. If the plan is enacted, total enrollment will increase by about 400 over a four-year period, and the Harvard-Radcliffe ratio will drop from 4 to 1 down to 2.5 to 1.

Under the terms of last year's "non-merger," which brought Harvard and Radcliffe close but kept them separate, this new admissions scheme could be expected. "Non-merger" left the admissions offices divided and the allotment of resources unequal. Under "non-merger." Harvard retained its primary commitment to the education of men.

Bok's statement in no way alters that commitment.

Bok presented his plan as a way to "provide a better environment for our entire student body." But because he was afraid of offending those alumni and faculty members who oppose cutting Harvard admissions to provide places for more Radcliffe women. Bok could not appreciably increase the size of the Radcliffe class without increasing the size of the entire student body. As a result, his plan increases total enrollment too much and Radcliffe enrollment too little.

Swelling the total enrollment will put additional strains on the aching Harvard budget. New students will require new housing, additional facilities and an expanded teaching staff. Yet Bok's primary argument for his plan is a financial one. Harvard alumni donate four times as much money as Radcliffe alumnae on a per capita basis, he wrote. If the Harvard class is cut, where will Harvard get the money to survive?

This argument has several fallacies. Many Radcliffe women marry Harvard men; they donate money together to the University. At Cornell, where the College of Arts and Sciences initiated a 1 to 1 male-female admissions policy, the dean of Admissions said he didn't receive "a single irate letter." Bok's policy is based on the logic of a system in which women earn less than men.

Instead of furthering reform, the Harvard Administration is blocking it.

Buttressing his financial argument, Bok said that women have traditionally favored the humanities and the social sciences. Increasing Radcliffe's class at the expense of Harvard's would thus weaken the already languishing sciences and burden the other fields with additional students and costs.

The basis for this theory is shaky at best. In this year's freshman class, 46 per cent of Radcliffe women and only 40 per cent of Harvard men are prospective science majors. Men and women have in the past drifted from the sciences at the same rate. Even if this year's figures are atypical and do not signify current trends--and there is no evidence to show that is true--Bok doesn't bother to discuss why women have avoided the sciences. Medical schools and engineering firms have traditionally discriminated against women applicants. Parents have discouraged their daughters from entering these fields. If Harvard has difficulty finding potential female scientists, it should recruit them. But Bok's second argument, like his first, ignores current data and, relying on the statistics of a shameful past, bolsters a discriminatory system.

Bok's third argument is the weakest of all. Opposing a large increase in the number of female students, he wrote, "it is quite likely...that the pool of women applicants would fail to rise sufficiently rapidly to allow such a change without diminishing the quality of our students." Has Bok any basis for his assumption that women are more stupid than men? If not, he should give equal attention and support to the education of men and women.

As a first step he should introduce a 1 to 1 admissions policy. He could accomplish this reform even within the framework of "non-merger." Bok has said that some of the additional tuition provided by the increased numbers of women would be ploughed back into scholarships. If that money proved insufficient, the admissions offices should be merged and scholarships should be provided without regard to sex. That can be decided later. What is needed now is a clear commitment to a 1 to 1 ratio. The University must adopt an admissions policy that cuts the number of men as the only financially practical and educationally desirable method of educating more women.

If President Bok continues to cater to all his audiences, he will never institute substantial reforms. A bill which is now before Congress could force Harvard to accept equal numbers of men and women. It would be unfortunate if the University waited for legislation under the Nixon Administration to force it to initiate progressive change.