We are disturbed by the staff's attempt to turn a criticism of administrative bureaucracy into an attack on Radcliffe College. The above editorial raises two issues which are glibly combined into one: the wisdom of hiring another administrator and the merits of the existence of Radcliffe.

The staff itself appears confused about whether it merely thinks Radcliffe is discriminatory or whether Radcliffe should be abolished. These are two separate agendas and need to be discussed as such.

To address the issue of discrimination, most of Radcliffe's programs are open to men. Men can enjoy the resources of the Schlesinger Library, the Murray Research Center and the Radcliffe Career Services, for example, and also participate in such activities as the Women's Leadership Project and Education for Action. And according to Radcliffe's Office of Communications, those programs closed to men are funded by private donations that stipulate that the beneficiaries should be female.

Second, to question the existence of Radcliffe is to question its commitment to a socially progressive agenda. Its charter states that it was founded to "educate and inspire women for full participation in all areas of life." Unfortunately, women have not yet achieved "full participation" in society, and until then, Radcliffe serves an important role in striving to redress the imbalances.

Radcliffe should be credited for its increased attempts to connect with female undergraduates, as well as alumnae. While The Crimson staff may be skeptical of the appointment of a new vice president, we believe that such an addition will address Radcliffe's need to expand its scholarship and programs such as the newly created Public Policy Institute.

That is not to say that there are not legitimate criticisms of Radcliffe. But we urge the staff to take a moment to learn what the college truly is about before blindly dismissing it as an anti- discriminatory institution.