THERE SHOULD NOT be an interdisciplinary committee in women's studies. That innovation would accentuate many of the same problems that the majority finds to have hurt the current committee.

That women have been given short shrift by male academicians and men in general is an historical fact; however there is nothing inherently sexist in the structure or methodology of the academic disciplines. Women's studies programs may be springing up across the country, but they exist solely as a symbol. There is no distinctly "feminine" science, history or philosophy. Indeed, to imply that there is would be outrageously sexist.

Nor could a legitimate women's studies curriculum be developed. The goal of the academic work that comes under the title, "women's studies," is instead to inject balance into traditional areas of study. But the removal of any male chauvinist bias from academic work must come from within specific existing, departments-otherwise, the problem of ignoring such biases will continue.

Furthermore, as the majority so eloquently states, the establishment of a committee does not a true commitment entail-quite the opposite, it seems. An inter-disciplinary committee of women's studies would only inhibit the reform of prejudices that exist in extant departments. Perhaps the only positives aspect of a new department would be the introduction of courses and seminars dedicated to re-examining areas traditionally biased against women, and in developing a greater understanding of women's role and contribution in academics. This is notably a role not adopted by the committee advocated by the majority-a body which could only create tutorials (in what, one is tempted to ask).

Thus, such a committee would separate feminist revisionists from the traditional disciplinary structures they seek to reform. This would surely run counter to the majority's ends. The majority is ill-advisedly treating women as "equal but separate" and women deserve better.