At an April rally to protest the possible demise of Radcliffe College, event organizer Emma Cheuse '98 addresses the crowd in Harvard Yard after leading a march from Radcliffe. FLINT BORN

Radcliffe Quandary

Though the question sounded simple, its profound undercurrents rattled a poised young politician. The day after Commencement, at the annual symposium of the Radcliffe College Alumnae Association (RCAA), the audience's final questioner addressed Diana Dávila '88, who is already in her third term in the Texas legislature and had just received an RCAA award recognizing her public service. The question: "On your campaign literature and your résumé, what college did you go to?" Presumably, a one-word answer would suffice, but Dávila's response--in précis, "Harvard"--required a couple of minutes and included several episodes of stammering. Dávila's nervousness symbolized the unsettled, unsettling issues surrounding her alma mater--whatever it is.

Questions about Radcliffe's status and future burst into the open on Easter Sunday, when the Boston Globe reported that discussions between officials at Harvard and Radcliffe would shortly end Radcliffe's status as an undergraduate college, turning it into one of Harvard's "allied institutions," like the art museums or the Arnold Arboretum.

The article aroused what is perhaps Radcliffe's greatest asset: the feelings of its constituents, young and old. Shortly after the Globe story appeared, Emma Cheuse '98 organized a demonstration that drew more than 100 people to Radcliffe Yard to hear speeches about preserving Radcliffe College. Athletes from the women's crew (funded by Harvard, but, with sailing, one of only two remaining varsity sports that compete for Radcliffe) and the Radcliffe rugby club (which later won the national championship) spoke about what it means to play for Radcliffe, not Harvard. Later, senior Kerrien Rollins asserted, "I am black and I am a woman; Harvard encourages me to collapse these two aspects of myself into one, as a Harvardian. I get a different kind of support from Radcliffe. To Radcliffe, I owe not only my survival but my sanity." Observing that "It's the first time I've ever seen a student rally for a college," Radcliffe president Linda S. Wilson gave a spirited speech, saying, "Don't let what you read in the Globe make you think you know what the future will bring. We represent a meaningful opportunity for undergraduate students that has always been here, and will always be here."

Joan Riddell Baer '58 and Jane O'Reilly '58, representatives of the Committee for the Equality of Women at Harvard, offer buttons advocating their cause. The Committee seeks to insure equality for women at Harvard within the tenured faculty, the curriculum, and the learning environment.

Yet, in the ensuing weeks, Wilson and Radcliffe's Board of Trustees frustrated the RCAA's attempts to understand exactly what would "always be here," and to learn about Radcliffe's plans and the negotiations with Harvard. Although seven of the 29 trustees represent the RCAA, the board's chair, Nancy-Beth Gordon Sheerr '71, instructed the group to keep mum about the process--to the RCAA, or anyone else, according to Margaret M. "Peggy" McIntosh '56, Ph.D. '67, the RCAA's second vice president. To protest this "secrecy," McIntosh resigned, stating that the board's reticence left her unequipped to represent the alumnae who elected her. "Radcliffe is an educational institution, not a corporation with shareholders whose future should be decided in back rooms," McIntosh wrote in her letter of resignation. She adds, "I think it is outrageous to bypass the 29,000 alumnae of Radcliffe."

In her speech at the annual RCAA luncheon June 5, Wilson spelled out "fundamental principles" for Radcliffe's future, including "a strong identity," "a perpetual mission," "a future built on current excellent programs," and "a robust relationship with Harvard." As for programs, she foresaw "meaningful opportunities for undergraduates and students across the lifespan," substantive research and policy work, and other activities intended to "make a discernable impact on society."

As for reaching out to constituents, Wilson noted that "we have already reached the stage of inviting comments on a specific proposal in one area. The topic is the intellectual terrain on which Radcliffe would focus much of its research and policy work in the future." Late in May, as undergraduates finished exams, Radcliffe bought a large display ad in the Crimson, signed by Wilson, that solicited student input on Radcliffe's strategic planning process; similar invitations went out in a letter from Wilson to all alumnae, and on Radcliffe's website ("http://www.radcliffe.edu").

These outreach efforts do not satisfy McIntosh, who calls them an "attempt to keep control while appearing to open the discussion. Asking about the 'intellectual terrain' invites only a discussion of the topics which the existing graduate institution should focus on; it implies that it's a done deal with regard to severing the ties with undergraduate women. The grounds of the discussion don't have to do with the major issues. It begs all the questions of Radcliffe's responsibility to undergraduate women at Harvard, and Radcliffe's relationship to Harvard itself." In her speech, Wilson called "inconceivable" a future that "would eclipse our commitment to make contributions to undergraduates" and committed Radcliffe to "focused discussion with our constituencies once our internal work to develop plausible proposals for future directions" has matured, beginning this fall.

Discerning the future: As reunioning graduates enjoy the Radcliffe College Alumnae Association luncheon on June 5, President Linda S. Wilson assails "press speculations" about Radcliffe's "demise" and outlines a planning process for the months to come. JON CHASE

Moving with much greater speed, three of Radcliffe's most active alumnae advanced their own proposal for the College's future. In a May 15 letter to officials of both Harvard and Radcliffe, RCAA secretary Susan Eaton '79, M.P.A.'93, former RCAA president Joy Kahlenberg Fallon '78, J.D. '82, and former RCAA and Harvard Board of Overseers president Renée Landers '77 proposed that Radcliffe might evolve into an "internationally acclaimed Radcliffe Center for the Advancement of Women at Harvard," modeled on the Kennedy School and its Institute of Politics, which "regularly offer programs, speakers' series, and committees which engage many undergraduates, as well as innovative, short-term courses on management and leadership in which outside senior professionals enroll." They say their vision "refutes the prevailing and false dichotomy...between Radcliffe as a 'college,' which cares about undergraduates, and Radcliffe as a distant, museum-like research institute, which has 'abandoned' undergraduate women."

*

From its founding as the Harvard Annex in 1879, Radcliffe--unlike "Seven Sister" siblings such as Barnard, Wellesley, and Smith--never had its own faculty. Its relationship to Harvard has changed throughout this century, with the classroom mingling of female and male students during World War II and the adoption of "coresidence" in 1971. The changes were codified in an historic 1977 agreement, the so-called "non-merger merger," by which Radcliffe ceded to Harvard virtually all functions of undergraduate education. Recent developments suggest that the terms of the 1977 accord no longer smoothly accommodate Harvard-Radcliffe interactions, and that change is in the offing.

Fundraising. One point of conflict is money. Harvard and Radcliffe officials have held talks about institutional interrelationships since at least 1993. Then both launched capital campaigns. Radcliffe has now raised $68 million toward its $100-million campaign goal. Harvard has simultaneously been running its own $2.1-billion University Campaign. By mutual agreement, Harvard allowed Radcliffe exclusive rights to solicit donations from those alumnae who had graduated before the "non-merger merger." Yet a year ago, in a letter and report to all Harvard and Radcliffe College alumni, Jeremy R. Knowles, dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, highlighted the lack of female involvement in Harvard's campaign, a move that many perceived as a tacit appeal for gifts, in violation of the spirit of the previous agreement. Says RCAA secretary Eaton, "That was the first shot across the bow at Radcliffe."

Harvard's development office is running focus groups for women, to learn more about how to appeal to female donors, and the University Campaign now has a high-profile matching fund to encourage gifts from women (see "University Challenges," page 65). Eaton says, "I feel like Harvard has discovered Radcliffe in the context of fundraising."

Radcliffe's own fundraising premises have sometimes drawn criticism. In an essay in the Chronicle of Higher Education last year, Claire Kaplan Lipsman '45, who calls Radcliffe "a fictive shell," ironically praised "the ingenuity of Radcliffe's leaders" who "have transformed this illusory college into a basically fraudulent way to collect money from innocent women who graduated more than 20 years ago." ("With no students or faculty, what are they spending their money on?"Lipsman asked. "I believe a shameful amount is going to overhead.")

Programs. Radcliffe is the locus of many activities important to women in their undergraduate years and beyond. This year, about 7 percent of its $24.3-million budget (mostly derived from annual gifts and income on a $200-million endowment) supported undergraduate educational programs, including Education for Action, research partnerships, mentor and externship programs, and an orientation to Harvard's science resources for incoming freshmen. Another 19 percent went to financial aid for undergraduates. The Schlesinger Library, the nation's preeminent research library on women's history and issues; the Bunting Institute, the prestigious center for independent work by female scholars and artists; and other advanced research institutes accounted for about 21 percent of the budget. Post-baccalaureate educational programs like Radcliffe Seminars and the Radcliffe Publishing Course took another 6 percent. Nearly 38 percent of the budget goes to overhead, administration, and fundraising, according to Radcliffe's vice president for finance and administration, Nancy Dunn, M.P.A. '84.

But Radcliffe no longer has a monopoly on programs for women. The Kennedy School has created a high-profile women's leadership program. Harvard College's Women's Initiative, funded by a $1.25-million gift from Maisie (Kinnicutt) Houghton '62 and James Houghton '58, M.B.A. '62, a member of the Harvard Corporation, brings women leaders to campus.

Assets. Beyond its institutes and endowment, Radcliffe controls important physical resources. The recent dispute over Harvard's continued use of the Radcliffe-owned Byerly Hall for undergraduate-admissions and graduate-school offices ("Brevia," May-June, page 83) is only the tip of the iceberg. Radcliffe owns 37 academic, administrative, and residential buildings on 20 acres of choice Cambridge real estate, including both Radcliffe Quad, site of three undergraduate houses, and Radcliffe Yard.

Degrees. As Diana Dávila's situation illustrates, the Harvard-Radcliffe ambiguities abound even for those who have graduated since 1977. At Commencement, Radcliffe president Linda S. Wilson formally "presents" women A.B. candidates to Harvard president Neil L. Rudenstine, and Harvard College dean Harry R. Lewis presents the men and women. This spring, the Undergraduate Council enacted a bill requesting that Lewis's signature be added to women's diplomas, which still bear the Radcliffe seal and Wilson's signature; the administration--no doubt embroiled in larger discussions--did not approve the legislation.

*

As a former RCAA and Overseers president, Renée Landers brings a uniquely broad Radcliffe and Harvard perspective to the issue. "Whenever you make a change like this," she says, "there will be a price to pay. There will be people who will be disappointed and heartbroken, and I understand it. But to have two institutions hanging around saying they are responsible for undergraduate education can be counterproductive: it allows the possibility that nothing will happen but finger-pointing. For example, Radcliffe can gripe about not having enough tenured women on the faculty, but they can't do anything about it. So it may be that if Radcliffe gives up any pretense of doing day-to-day undergraduate education, that would really put Harvard on the hook to make sure they were doing it right."

As for what it will take to realize her vision, Landers says, "I do think that Harvard wants to get the deal done cheaply." That, she makes clear, would be a mistake. "Perhaps the ownership of the Quad buildings changes--money ought to change hands for that. Harvard would be negotiating for access to the alumnae donor base, graduates from the mid '70s and earlier. That's worth something, too--Radcliffe has been cultivating these people over the years." Harvard, she concludes, "has this opportunity to bring under its umbrella the building blocks of a crackerjack women's research institute, something that doesn't exist anywhere else at the University. And the way to make it fail is to undercapitalize it--that's the real risk for the people who care about these activities. The money needs to be on the table."