In 1964 the primary goal of College administrators was maintaining "an open door and one foot on the floor" policy for students entertaining guests of the opposite sex in their rooms.

Parietal infractions of the previous spring had convinced college deans that it might be necessary to restrict parietal privileges for students at both Harvard and at Radcliffe. But as concern over proposed reduction in parietal privileges claimed the attention of both students and officials, the ensuing conflict escalated into a sex scandal that reached the front pages of salubrious national tabloids like Boston's own Record American.

Essentially the conflict was one of whose right it was to determine the morality of college students--the College's or the students' themselves. And in the process of decrying the proposed tightening of existing parietal rules, the class of 1964 entered the fringe of what would become the 1960s sexual revolution.

Students in 1964 were concerned with lengthening the number of hours they were allowed to spend with members of the opposite sex in the privacy of their own rooms, but few could appreciate the fact that only a decade earlier men and women were not allowed to enter dormitories of the opposite sex at all.

Parietal rules, which, as the the Radcliffe Redbook of rules described them, were "the Harvard-Radcliffe term used for those hours during which students may entertain students of the opposite sex in their rooms" took effect in 1952.

The main purpose of the rules was to restrict the presence to women in Harvard Houses to specified times. Radcliffe students could stay in the Harvard houses from 4 p.m. until 7 p.m. In 1952 the hours were extended until 11 p.m. in the evening on Saturdays and finally, in 1956, women were allowed in the Houses, at the Masters' discretion, until midnight on the weekends. At Radcliffe, 1962 saw the extension of parietal hours to 25 per week, at the discretion of the dormitory.

Parietal rules applied to student groups as well as dormitories. In mixed organizations such as the Harvard-Radcliffe Orchestra (HRO), there were special hours during which women were allowed to work in the group offices. The Student Activities Center was open from only 1 p.m. to 7 p.m. for women, and even organizations like WHRB, The Crimson and the Hasty Pudding Club had parietal hours.

Officially, the purpose of the parietals was moral. As Dean Watson said at the time, "It is not appropriate for a Harvard student to entertain a girl in his own room." Other attitudes that concerned the parietal rules were also morally grounded. David E. Owen, Master of Winthrop House, told The Crimson that "people are concerned about the unusual situation in which unmarried men are entertaining young women in what amounts to their bedrooms. This is not an accepted procedure in the United States or anywhere in the Western world."

College officials said the rules were also intended to fulfill an academic function because they believed restricting the times during which women could enter the Houses would help maintain peaceful and undistracting study hours.

The 1963 conflict originated at the beginning of the class of 1964's senior year, when Watson announced that he was planning to investigate the possibility of curtailing parietal privileges at Harvard. According to Watson, the College wished to avoid sexual scandals, and the Dean hinted that there had been several bad situations the year before which could have been embarrassing for Harvard.

He told The Crimson, "We found girls staying in dormitory rooms after hours, boys from other Houses writing illegibly in the sign-in books, girls being signed out by someone other than her host and many other infractions. Sometimes girls are signed out at midnight on Saturday and they're still in there."

Watson's determined language indicates the scale to which the College was dedicated to ending the parietal problem. Dean John E. Monro, told reporters he was anxious and upset about the parietal rule infractions.

A Crimson article stated, "Monro said sexual intercourse between unmarried individuals was an abuse the College could not tolerate."

To the administrators, sex between Harvard and Radcliffe students seemed to be in the same league as lying, cheating and stealing.

At the time, Watson said, "We have to watch the mores of our students. I do not want to see Harvard play a leading role in relaxing the moral code of college youth. The College must follow the customs of the time and the community. We cannot have rules more liberal than a standard generally accepted by the American public."