Can Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis' refusal to even consider the proposal to add his signature to female undergraduates' diplomas be seen as anything but basic antipathy to recognizing the contributions, achievement and participation of women enrolled in Harvard College? In a four-sentence statement about his decision Dean Lewis implied that it would be a waste of his time "to go through the many layers of approvals needed" in order to "effect the modest alteration of adding a signature to women's diplomas." In contrast, on the day of his diploma veto, Dean Lewis promised to advocate for the reinstatement of Latin on baccalaureate diplomas, providing women with an example of an issue on which he apparently would prefer to spend his energy.

When it comes down to it, the Dean's statement to the student body about this bill suggests that he is simply not willing to properly recognize the successful completion of four years of academic toil by 48 percent of the student body whose interests and needs he is supposed to represent. We wish to call him publicly accountable for his indefensible behavior and decision not to endorse equal Harvard College recognition for female undergraduate diplomas.

On February 22, the Undergraduate Council, joined by dozens of visiting students, passed a bill expressing support for a continued Radcliffe presence on female undergraduate diplomas and recommending the addition of the Harvard College Dean's signature to their diplomas. In doing so, the council showed that it is symbolically powerful and necessary to keep the Radcliffe seal and signature on women's diplomas in order to recognize the role of Radcliffe in pioneering women's education and its continued work for female students at Harvard. More importantly, this bill asserted that, because female undergraduates are fully enrolled in Harvard College, they should also receive official recognition of this enrollment on their diplomas.

However, on March 30, Dean Lewis vetoed the council's proposal, despite the fact that he had originally expressed his approval for diploma reform. The main differences between the bill that passed and its original version were: one, the new bill included language recognizing the importance of Radcliffe; and, two, instead of leaving the actual diploma change up to the administration, it proposed making the specific change of adding Dean Lewis' signature to female undergraduate diplomas. His decision raises questions about why he would support one bill and not the other.

Was it because the second bill included Radcliffe where the first bill had blatantly omitted it and Dean Lewis wanted a supposed mandate from students to ignore Radcliffe in future diploma negotiations? A fear of such a scenario was what precipitated the dozens of e-mails to the council e-mail list before the meeting and brought many non-council members to the February meeting to speak about this issue. Or, was it because Dean Lewis just did not want students to address any of the diploma issues directly, and thus preferred a bill that left all proposed changes to him and other administrators to decide behind closed doors? While we realize that the final diploma decision does not rest with the students, it is unrealistic and condescending for Lewis to expect students not to have and express an opinion on what our diplomas should look like.

In describing his opposition to this bill, Dean Lewis said, "I can't see any good reason" to make this change, a change we feel would acknowledge and celebrate women's full participation in Harvard College. During the month he took to decide the diploma issue, though, he declined two offers to meet or speak with the bill's sponsors. As council members who submitted a bill to Dean Lewis in good faith and offered our time and help to his decision-making process, we can only assume that he did not want to "see any good reason" why he should sign this bill, and thus took care to avoid meeting with us or considering the question in full. In vetoing the bill without expressing a real reason, Dean Lewis made a powerful statement about his lack of interest in supporting campus women's issues except in nominal ways that improve Harvard's image for fundraising purposes.

A final argument informally used by Dean Lewis to oppose the diploma bill was that it would necessitate renegotiation of the Harvard-Radcliffe agreement. As students who realize that the relationship of these two institutions continues to evolve, we expect that renegotiations of the 1977 agreement will occur as Harvard and Radcliffe Colleges see fit. It seems only logical that because female undergraduates are simultaneously enrolled in Harvard and Radcliffe Colleges upon their admission, their diplomas should reflect that. No legitimate claim can thus be made that adding the signature of Dean Lewis, representing Harvard College's recognition of its female undergraduates, would jeopardize or challenge the fundamental relationship between Harvard and Radcliffe as it exists.

In conclusion, we asked Dean Lewis to sign our bill as a statement of support for the recognition of both Harvard and Radcliffe Colleges on female undergraduate diplomas, and to work within negotiating constraints to advocate for an important change, however "modest." Now, we ask the Harvard-Radcliffe community to take notice of the fact that by stating he could find no good reason to sign the diploma bill, Dean Lewis was simply saying he could find no good reason to give his own signature to female diplomas. Female undergraduates have been waiting since 1977 for full Harvard College recognition-do we now have to wait for a new dean?

Meredith Bagley '99 and Anna Baldwin '00 are both Mather House representatives to the Undergraduate Council. Emma Cheuse '98 is the Dunster House Delegation Chair to the council.