In short, there is no debate over whether Radcliffe College should exist. For all intents and purposes, it already doesn't. Radcliffe is now a library, a group of fellowships, a collection of alumnae, a label to use when necessary or convenient.

But closing the book on Radcliffe would be taking away all the fun. The men who fear Radcliffe would have no reason to complain, no response for the women who think Radcliffe is fine as it is. Destroying the Radcliffe Myth would be like admitting that conservatives aren't as oppressed as they like to claim. Once liberated, what would they find to talk about?

This is Harvard, after all. There are magazines to fill and forums to hold, Most importantly, there are egos to appease. Harvard students have to feel important, and in today's era of special interests and identity politics, you're only important if you're oppressed.

Harvard women, for the most part, are through with oppression--and they're too busy rowing crew or directing musicals or writing for newspapers to complain about their victim status. They know that regardless of whether our diplomas say "Harvard" or "Radcliffe" or "Harvard-Radcliffe", we all suffered through the same boring speeches on plagiarism, and we all had to eat the same institutional food.

Harvard ultra-conservatives, on the other hand, could use a little help. It's not easy being ignored because everything you say sounds so hopelessly redundant. It's not easy being dismissed because you have so few original ideas. It's not easy feeling lonely because you've alienated everyone around you.

Let's face it, those folks could use a little tender loving care. How about tossing them a hand-me-down institution? We don't really need it anymore.

Joanna M. Weiss '94 was editorial chair of the Crimson in 1993. for her next project, she plans to take on the health project, she plans to take on the health care crisis. he has a pet parakeet named Percy Pigeon.