Second, it would also help to reduce the number of people per house at the Quad from Plan 3's 450 to a more manageable 400. As a result of these advantages. Plan 4 is beginning to attract support, including that of North House Co-Masters Edward and Juan Keenan and of Dean Whitlock.

The unknown factor in the whole process is the mysterious, unnamed donor who is currently being courted to provide the money for construction. For two reasons the need to include his concerns in the final decision between the various plans may work to the disadvantage of the Radcliffe site proposals.

First, buildings built with donated funds are traditionally named after the donor. The Charles H. Alumni Connecting Addition may not be exactly what he had in mind. Yet, this need not be a major stumbling block, as South House could easily be renamed in his honor.

The primary problem is the fact that the donor is a "Harvard Man" who would prefer to give to "Harvard" (hence. the Hunt Hall site) rather than to "Radcliffe." Whether he could be (or has already been) convinced to change his mind is not yet known (although he has gone on several "walking tours" of Radcliffe, accompanied by President Bok.)

With President Bok "leaning" toward the Radcliffe site proposal, it appears that the only impediment to either Plan 3 (critical mass) or 4 (the compromise) is the donor. At this writing, it appears that one of these two plans will be adopted. A final decision is expected very soon.

It is important, at this point, to set aside the issues of mortar and bricks and to examine both the decision-making process itself and the premises upon which it is based. There are two major problems with the way in which the discussions about building construction have been carried on so far.

First, while the interested parties have been encouraged to separately refine their own proposals, there has been no open forum in which both the opposing sides (Proponents of Plans 2 and 3) have argued the relative merits of their proposals before the decision-makers President Bok and the donor). The Radcliffe Masters have met to consider the Planning Office's design for Plan 3, but discussion has been confined to the problems of that plan rather than the the advantages of that plan over the Hunt Hall proposal.

Student input has followed the same pattern. The Radcliffe House Committees have been asked to submit criticisms of the Radcliffe site proposal, not their opinions as to the relative merits of Plans 2 and 3. Student input has been highly limited in any case. Students were first invited to the series of meetings on the Radcliffe site plans only the week before Winter Recess Moreover, student members of the CHUL have found themselves unsure of how to proceed primarih because of the unstructured nature of the decision making process and the lack of direct confrontation between interested parties. With that lack of structure one has the sense that most real bargaining is going on behind the scenes.

The Second major problem with current discussion about new construction is the seeming unwillingness of any participants in question the first rule of the game that the College will be expanded. New construction is only a "problem" because it was decided that a 2.5 to Eration would be reached by expanding the College's size. Obviously, expansion is not at all necessary to achieve such a ratio nor to achieve a sex blind policy.

YET THAT DECISION has now achieved a self generating potential of its own. Now that the money is available, it must be used. And once the downs are built, they cannot remain vacant--they must be filled with new students.

Unfortunately, there has never been a serious College-wide consideration of what should have been the first question: What will an expansion in College size do to the quality of undergraduate education? With the projected decrease in the number of teaching fellows, and with the absence of any plans to alter educational facilities in response to an increase in size, the impact of expansion on quality ought to be a primary consideration. It is precisely that consideration that has forced Yale's President Brewster to reevaluate his own decision to expand the size of that institution.

Up until now, the increase in the size of the College has been accepted as a fait accompli by those discussing Plans 1 to 4. Perhaps the proper plan is a new Plan 5: Construct no new dormitory, maintain the current size of the College by admitting more women and fewer men, and use of the donated funds for another purpose.

Perhaps that's not the best plan. Perhaps one of Plans 1-4 is. But that is something this community ought to decide for itself--before the logic of mortar and bricks decides it for us.