But the presumed fait accompli came under attack from Radcliffe alumnae who opposed their alma mater's dissolution. And Harvard stalwarts came forward to reiterate the long-standing reasons for their skepticism. Franklin L. Ford, then dean of the Faculty, subtly summed it all up: "The most brutal formulation of the problem is that merger might mean achieving sexual diversity at the expense of other kinds of diversity."

Other Faculty members and Administrators followed in stride, implying that geographic, economic, academic, and racial diversity could not possibly be achieved with regard to women.

BUT ALL the rationalizations were just a way to duck the larger issue: equal admission of men and women, the logical next step for an institution with a decaying male tradition.

So in December 1970 a committee of Harvard and Radcliffe governing board members proposed a plan that, while technically a "non-merger," combined the two institutions, keeping Radcliffe as a separate but redefined administration. The terms of that "non-merger merger" peace settlement, later approved by the Harvard Board of Overseers and the Radcliffe Trustees, were:

that Radcliffe retain ownership of its property and endowment;

that Harvard assume responsibility for operating Hilles as well as the other Radcliffe buildings and dining facilities;

that Radcliffe pay Harvard 100 per cent of its income from endowment, tuition fees and rents, and that Harvard assume the total expense of Radcliffe's operation, including joint fund raising;

that the Radcliffe Houses become part of a unified House system under the Faculty of Arts and Sciences; and

that Radcliffe retain control of the Schlesinger Library, the Radcliffe Institute, the Alumnae Office, and its admissions and financial aid office.

The non-merger merger was financially attractive to Radcliffe: Harvard absorbed all of its debts. But for Harvard's sake, the compromise side-stepped the key issue--the total absorption of Radcliffe women into the Harvard mainstream, a situation that many observers felt could only be brought about by the admission of equal numbers of both sexes.

And, in fact, male faculty and administrators had feared a legal merger would eventually require a one-to-one male-to-female ratio.

Committee members who drew up the non-merger recommendation admitted freely that their proposal intentionally avoided the ratio issue--which was not in keeping with their report's repeated emphasis on "full and equal participation of Radcliffe students in the intellectual and social life of the University."

In the last couple of years, Pembroke and Jackson women have officially become Brown and Tufts women, respectively. The mergers at those institutions paved the way toward equal admissions.

But in 1972 the most President Bok would do was to offer a plan for a 2.5-to-1 ratio of men to women, and this only by expanding the colleges.

The non-merger merger that went into effect in June 1971 is renewable after four years. In June 1975 Radcliffe can recover its holdings, a move that will be virtually impossible since the school would have to reabsorb its debts and face a University for which coeducation has become a way of life.

Therefore, when the issue of Radcliffe's status arises again in a little less than two years, the two alternatives will be renewal of the non-merger merger accord or adoption of a total agreement.

Many Radcliffe (Harvard?) women sense a schizophrenia that follows from our experiences with the non-merger. Technically we were all admitted to Radcliffe: we filed our applications with the Radcliffe admissions office, and our letters of acceptance bore the Radcliffe crest and the signature of a Radcliffe dean.

But as it worked out, we came to Harvard. At Harvard we carry on the pursuits that make us students: we registered with Harvard men to take Harvard courses, we live in Harvard Houses, we pay our bills to Harvard, and we receive our walking papers from Harvard.

So, where the Radcliffe experience ends and the Harvard experience begins remains unclear. Apparently our affiliation with Radcliffe ends with the letter of admission we received when we were still in high school. And if the dividing line between our associations with the two schools was back in high school, maybe the issue of merger isn't an issue at all