The University will soon request a court decision as to whether sex-restricted graduate prizes can be opened to both men and women. The action, reflecting the terms of the Harvard-Radcliffe merger, would make the prizes available to more undergraduates than at present.

Radcliffe has yet to declare similar intentions to open sex-restricted prizes to both men and women.

Daniel-Steiner '54, general counsel to the University, said yesterday that the University is reviewing all endowed graduate prizes to determine which of them can be opened to Radcliffe women. Steiner said that since the conditions of each prize are worded differently, the biggest obstacle in changing the specifications of the awards lies in the terms themselves.

"We must sift through the terminology of the various prizes to see which ones may be opened to Radcliffe women," Steiner said. "We are hopeful that Harvard will be able to open up some of its prizes to both men and women."

Steiner's counterpart at Radcliffe, Robert I. Hunneman '28, said yesterday that, to his knowledge, Radcliffe has no plans at present to open to both sexes graduate prizes endowed "for women only." He said that he had prepared an opinion on the matter in his role as legal counsel to Radcliffe, but added that the memorandum "cannot be released at this time."

Review of Prizes

Under the terms of the Harvard-Radcliffe merger, both colleges agreed to review all deeds of gifts for endowed prizes. The findings of this review will determine which prizes can be opened to members of the other college.

Steiner said that Harvard now plans to present the findings of this review before the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, which has jurisdiction over endowments and donations of charitable funds.

Hunneman said yesterday that the object of the court presentation is to decide which endowed prizes can, by rule of law, be altered to include those previously excluded.

"The restrictions placed on gifts of this sort (endowed prices) must be carried out unless it becomes impossible to do so." Hunneman said. "If there is still a perfectly good use for the money under the terms of the endowment, there is little chance for change."

The most perplexing legal problem surrounding the change of any endowed prizes of either Harvard or Radcliffe is the necessity for separate interpretation of each bill. Both Steiner and Hunneman emphasized that because of this it is impossible to make general statements or recommendations on the situation.

Interpretation of the donor's wishes is the crux of the issue. The Supreme Judicial Court must decide whether or not donors who specified that applicants be "men only" or "women only" did so under the assumption that undergraduates at Harvard and Radcliffe would always remain all male and all female, respectively.

However, beyond the intricacies of the phrasing of the grants lies the problem of segregating undergraduates by sex. Under the merger, Radcliffe students become Harvard undergraduates, but the same cannot be said for Harvard students living at Radcliffe. They do not become Radcliffe undergraduates from the merger.

This type of reasoning could enable Radcliffe to maintain the status quo of graduate prizes. Resolution of the problem as a whole hinges on solving this dilemma