Their protests and faith vindicated, advocates of Radcliffe's 1.18-to-1 male-female ratio and defenders of the Committee on Houses and Undergraduate Life were smiling yesterday. CHUL had voted to rescind its much maligned January recommendation that specific sex ratios be eliminated for all houses.

But behind that decision, there actually lies a much more complex--and in many ways disheartening--situation.

The question of house sex ratios is complex, with valid arguments on both sides. This is one reason why the original January vote, which abolished the ratios, was very close (12-10). At that time, the committee--whose students had accrued one year's experience in housing matters--spent an hour debating the issue before taking any vote.

All of this contrasts to the way the question was resolved yesterday. The new CHUL's students are just learning the ropes; Wednesday was their first full meeting. After a Radcliffe student made the motion to rescind, only two other committee members, both House masters, spoke. Although other student members wanted to discuss the issue, the question was called because it was past six o'clock--most of the meeting had been wasted on less significant business.

Of course, it is true that discussion had gone on before Wednesday's meeting, at least among the students, who had held two meetings. Effective protests by Radcliffe residents underscored the ramifications for the Quad of the original decision.

CHUL has had a propensity over the years for making bizarre decisions. Last year they reset the sex ratio at Radcliffe, pulling that odd male proportion 1.18 out of thin air. Administrators didn't know where it came from; they eventually established a 1.3-to-1 ratio.

The January decision fell into the same category. After the house sex ratios were abolished, it became clear that the decision was not based on a broad view of the situation, or what Dean Rosovsky calls "the common good." Rosovsky, disenchanted by the divisive January meeting ("It was like Kilometer 101 before the cease-fire," he said), even hinted that he would reject the recommendation.

While the sex-ratio controversy may have lowered CHUL's influence, it has demonstrated the effectiveness of Radcliffe's students, for whom Wednesday's decision signals the second triumph in two years. Last year, working inside CHUL, they succeeded in easing the crowding in North and South Houses; this year, they have successfully defended their sex ratio.

The main uncertainty now lies in the all-important merger talks, or more precisely, in the newly appointed Strauch committee, which will debate issues such as house sex ratios. There are Harvard administrators who do not believe there is really a pressing need for women to have a residential area where they will not be in the minority. On the other hand, there are students and others who would like to see a 1-to-1 ratio in the whole college.

As the end of Harvard's common-law marriage with Radcliffe approaches, Radcliffe students will begin to discover whether their influence, so successful with CHUL, will extend to the more important