To the Editors of The Crimson:

As House fellowships advisers, we are concerned that the Opinion article of 4/9/81--"The Fellow in Fellowships"--seriously confused two aspects of the fellowship selection process. Applicants have the right to be sensitive to interview and evaluation procedures that are clearly discriminatory, but a distinction must be made between questions with the intent to discriminate and those with the intent to evaluate. The authors of the article failed to recognize this distinction.

We agree that questions about batting one's eyelashes are inappropriate at any level of the selection process. We regret that interviewing committees are sometimes unable to assess women's abilities to react to stress without raising sex-related issues. However, we also think that students should realize the obligation of committees to raise sensitive issues which may be encountered by the student, to gauge command over a plan of study, and to test commitment to a future career. Most fellowships are not strictly objective and represent an investment in an individual's potential as well as a reward for academic achievements. Hence, applicants must often demonstrate the ability to interact with others, display mature judgment, or meet other requirements which may be stipulated by a will. To assess these qualities, committees must often choose questions designed to elicit an emotional response. Other questions which seem unreasonable to the applicant, for example ones about a student's medical history, may be fully justified by the committee's past experience.

On the level of House advising, we feel that the fellowships adviser has the responsibility to give students an honest appraisal of difficulties which may be encountered in obtaining and implementing a particular fellowship. In the article, a woman student complained of having received warnings about travel in the Middle East. We do not think that such warnings are discriminatory. Unfortunately, women who have actually travelled there, among whom are Radcliffe administrators and students on leave, have verified certain dangers. Proposals like the one mentioned are by no means discouraged, but we feel that it is our duty to ensure than any person, male or female, undertaking this sort of project be fully aware of possible problems and of appropriate measures of recourse. Every year, students do encounter a variety of emotionally trying and physically hazardous situations, and in a few unfortunate instances, they have been unable to cope. Unwillingness to acknowledge possible problems suggests to us that a student has not fully researched the project. In view of the intense competition for fellowships, it would be unfair to give a student the benefit of the doubt.

In closing, we want to remark that we would like to see all fellowships opened to women. However, as graduates of Radcliffe College, we feel uneasy about the envious tone used by the authors to describe the fellowships restricted to men. To us, differences in the size of the fellowships' awards do not determine the prestige or academic distinction that such fellowships confer. The authors of the article also fail to recognize that the $18,000 distributed by the Radcliffe fellowships could easily be divided into the same amounts as the $18,500 distributed by the Shaw, King, etc. Instead, Radcliffe has had a philosophy of assisting as many women as possible, a policy which requires smaller awards but which has helped many more individuals to accomplish their goals. The belittling tone used towards the Radcliffe Fellowships, in an article co-authored by a former president of RUS, threatens to undermine an enlightened tradition of honoring women's achievements. Gina Feldberg '77   Jeanne M. Zarucchi '76