Rob Yalen's letter ("Time to Review Radcliffe," Jan. 21, 1994) is on the mark. It has long seemed odd that Harvard, the Crimson, and Perspective, all vehemently opposed to gender-discrimination as a matter of principle, easily accept it in the case of Radcliffe College. Radcliffe is as adamantly single sex as are, for instance, the final clubs. The pamphlet, Facts About Radcliffe College, 1993-1994, boasts of the advantages offered exclusively to females: "Women are dual citizens of Radcliffe and Harvard...Today, women students have access to all of the resources of Harvard College. They also have access to all of the programs provided for undergraduates of Radcliffe College as well as to its educational, research, and scholarly programs." Cann there be a clearer case of gender-discrimination? Why should men be denied the advantages of Radcliffe simply because they are male?

An obvious--but unprincipled--answer is that long tradition has lead to this result and men suffer only slight deprivation by being excluded. But the tradition of the final clubs is far longer than that of Radcliffe and no evidence suggests that any Harvard graduate has suffered serious loss by remaining un-clubbed.

That some resent their exclusion cannot be denied: It is said that Franklin D. Roosevelt '04, failing to make the Porcellian--despite Theodore's intervention--forever regretted the fact. Still, he bore his disappointment bravely.

Actually, preferring reason to slavish adherence to principle, I would advocate respecting the traditions both of Radcliffe and the final clubs. Unfortunately, that is wildly un-p.c. E. L. Pattullo   Center for the Behavioral sciences