The present merger plan, like most compromises, satisfies almost everyone and pleases almost no one. Harvard has accepted the fact that it is cheaper to support Radcliffe than to create new coeducational facilities. Radcliffe has approved the merger rather than lace a desperate financial crisis, and is trusting to Harvard's goodwill and student concern to safeguard the interests of women.

The main question most Cliffies are asking is whether or not the new merger plan is a better deal for women. Does Radcliffe have more power to further women's interests as a separate institution or as part of Harvard? How flexible will the new contract be to changes regarding admissions and the ratio of women to men? Why is the contract being rapidly pushed through before Bok takes office? Does the four-year clause freeze the issue until 1975? How much power will the Dean/President of Radcliffe have to further the interests of women at Harvard?

Radcliffe women are not the only people questioning the new merger plan. Alumnae and women on the faculty and in the Administration have expressed doubts as to Harvard's sincere commitment to furthering educational opportunities for women. On the other hand, there are women who feel that Radcliffe alone would not do a better job of it.

The merger contract between Harvard and Radcliffe will become effective June 30, 1971 and be subject to review during the academic year 1974-1975. Although the contract itself has not yet been drawn up, Daniel Steiner, Legal Counsel to the University, will base the contract on the final report of the Committee on Harvard-Radcliffe Relationships, released January 25. The committee which drew up the final report consisted of Presidents Bunting and Pusey, Radcliffe Trustees Helen H. Gilbert and Frances C. Donovan and Corporation members Hugh Calkins and Frances H. Burr. An implementation committee under Dean Dunlop now has the report and will work out the details of the actual merger.

THE REPORT states that "Radcliffe would have the right to terminate the arrangement effective June 30, 1975." But, as one woman at the Law School put it: "Having relinquished its identity and separateness so completely, Radcliffe as such would not exist to terminate in 1975 and to smugly suggest the contrary is the epitome of lack of good faith on the part of Harvard."

The report basically assumes that "A total merger of Radcliffe College into Harvard University is not desirable at this time." What it achieves is a masterpiece of how to have your cake and eat it too-Harvard will obtain co-education without changing its admissions policies, while Radcliffe will relinquish financial responsibility for housing and administration, without giving up its endowment.

The single most important reason for merger at this time is financial. According to Harriet B. Belin, Director of Radcliffe Admissions, "It is the only solution to our financial pickle." Radcliffe is facing a projected deficit of close to a million dollars for 1971-1972. Her alumnae annual giving is down 30 per cent this year as compared to last. Radcliffe will save a great deal of money be eliminating its separate administration of housing, buildings and grounds, and dean's offices. Another important consideration was Radcliffe's staff which has been patient and long-suffering through two years of uncertainty. "We would have preferred to wait for Bok," said Helen H. Gilbert, Chairman of the Radcliffe Trustees, "but it would have been dreadful for the staff."

Students and alumnae wonder whether it is worth "selling out" to Harvard without first safeguarding specific female interests such as more women on the faculty, equal admissions policy, the Radclie Institute, and day-care. They question the necessity for immediate merger and propose alternatives such as an outright gift from Harvard, cut-backs on tuition, and even the use of capital funds. They point out that Harvard's financial situation is also precarious and that the every-tub-on-its-own-bottom philosophy is not applicable to Radcliffe. As one alumna wrote to Gilbert, "I am unimpressed with the financial urgency of this marriage of convenience. I hope the Radcliffe trustees will not find us so weak-kneed that we cannot cut expenditures and trim our sails until we are sure the arrangement we are making is what we want for future Radcliffe students.

Others feel that Radcliffe has never really furthered the interests of Harvard women and would definitely not be able to do so should it remain single. In December's Radcliffe Quarterly three graduate students trace the history of Radcliffe and reveal a consistently conservative attitude on Radcliffe's part when it comes to pressing Harvard for female equal opportunity. According to Ann N .Michelini '60, Co-chairman of the Graduate Women's Organization, "The existence of Radcliffe as a separate, but completely dependent institution has been repeatedly used by Harvard as a protective barrier against admitting women equally to the advantages men students enjoy. At present, Radcliffe is still being used by Harvard to discriminate against women, for only by maintaining the fiction that Radcliffe is a separate entity can Harvard justify the present ratio of four men to one woman. .. . As a separate institution with no faculty and no independent educational policy, Radcliffe can not serve the 'special educational needs' of women. . . . Undergraduate women would be able to urge response to their 'interests' and 'special needs' [should any arise] more effectively within Harvard College than outside it."

II

The final merger report recommends:

Radcliffe houses become part of Harvard's unified house system and Harvard assume responsibility for their administration. Radcliffe houses must be comparable to Harvard's regarding common rooms, tutor residences, etc. Fund raising for this project will be a joint responsibility of Harvard and Radcliffe.

The present Radcliffe Dean's Office be replaced by the House Master and Burr Tutor system. Although the report specifically states that "Women should be represented in appropriate numbers among the House Masters, College Deans, Burr Tutors and in the various faculties," it does not specify what is meant by "appropriate."

The Harvard Governing Boards and Radcliffe Trustees jointly appoint a "Dean/President" of Radcliffe. It is not required that a woman fill this position. He or she will be a member of the Council of Deans and of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. The Radcliffe Dean will be responsible for activities which will remain separate from Harvard including admissions and financial aid, the career counseling office, the Radcliffe Institute, the Schlesinger Library, and the Alumnae Office. However, the function remains vague: "He or she would be expected to take a special interest in initiating and extending educational opportunities for women under that Faculty."

Radcliffe give Harvard the income from her endowment, her current gifts and her entire tuition revenue. In exchange, Harvard accepts joint responsibility to close the gap (estimated this year at $250,000) between this income and the amount Radcliffe needs to meet her expenses. Harvard will provide the balance only under two conditions: 1) that the budget for specific Radcliffe activities such as admissions and financial aid be reviewed by a joint Harvard-Radcliffe Committee, and that should Radcliffe fund-raising fall below an agreed amount, Radcliffe activities suffer accordingly.

Harvard and Radcliffe recognize fund-raising as a joint responsibility and operate jointly as far as practicable.