President emeritus James Bryant Conant '14 is often quoted by his friends as saying over 25 years ago that Harvard does not have coeducation in theory, just in fact. Today, more than ever, this is true. Men and women live in the same buildings, attend the same classes and receive the same diplomas, but the distinction between Harvard and Radcliffe students remains clear in the minds of many administrators, Faculty members and alumni: The University's chief task is to prepare 10,000 men of Harvard to become the leaders of tomorrow; the University's facilities are available for the girls of Radcliffe.

During the 1971 agreement negotiations between Radcliffe and Harvard, then-President Mary I. Bunting likened the whole procedure to her bee-keeping hobby. The delicate process of combining two beehives, she said, must begin with the choosing of one colony as the base. Then, the cover of the hive is removed and layers of paper are placed over it to separate the two bee populations. By the time the workers of both hives have caten through the paper, they are supposed to have become accustomed to each other. "With luck it all works out," Bunting said, adding that the honey production of one strong hive is always better than that of several weak ones.

Bunting was both realistic and optimistic in her analogy. She understood that an agreement between Harvard and Radcliffe would threaten Radcliffe's identity and only enhance Harvard's. Harvard, with its vast resources, would definitely be the base colony in any effort to bring the two hives closer together.

But perhaps Bunting was too optimistic in her assumption that the "workers" of Harvard and Radcliffe could devour through all the paper that separated the two institutions. For years, loyal Harvardians have argued against any change in the Harvard-Radcliffe relationship that could remotely threaten the "10,000 men of Harvard" syndrome.

Harvard's overriding, long-term concern must always be financial security, the argument begins. To ensure this security, Harvard must maintain and increase the current levels of support it receives from alumni and friends. So no discussion about the Harvard-Radcliffe future alternatives can even be initiated if there is a chance that the outcome could threaten the present money-flow to Harvard. The argument goes on to suggest that Harvard can not possibly reduce the numbers of men it educates in any efforts to increase the numbers of women because of the two pronged threat such action would pose to future contributions. First, many current alumni supporters would be far less inclined to deliver their highly sought after checks to Harvard instead of elsewhere if they saw a cut-back in the number of possible slots open for their sons in future years. Second, and more importantly, women are supposedly not able to donate at the same levels as men because they are traditionally not the bread-winners, and because married couples usually give more to the husband's alma mater than the wife's. Therefore, a reduction in men now is supposed to mean a severe drop in contributions 20 years from now. Money, then, is one of thickest and hardest layers to be eaten through if Harvard and Radcliffe are ever to become a single University dedicated to equal access and treatment in the education of all its students.

In the real world, no one doubts that women themselves have changed, both in the way they view themselves and their roles and in their professional involvement and ambitions. But in some cases, perceptions of women's roles have not kept apace with these changes. F. Skiddy von Stade '38 dean of freshmen, has been quoted as saying he opposes an increase in women enrollment if it means a reduction in men; he says if anything he'd rather see men increased.

Opposition to more women, ostensibly based on the financial reality of the current status of women, is often expressed in more subtle terms, but the opposition comes from some very high places in both the current administration and faculty of Harvard. Dr. Chase N. Peterson '52, whose role as vice president for alumni affairs and development supposedly puts him in an excellent position to weigh the merits of the financial argument, appears to be one of the strongest proponents of the theory that women are less prolific donors. Peterson takes his warning to see large alumni donors, other administrators and even the Strauch Committee, which is now investigating the future of Harvard and Radcliffe admissions policies.

Thirty years ago, the question of whether women could support the University at the same levels as their male counterparts was a viable one. But, despite the persistence of views similar to those of Peterson and von Stade, it appears that very few of the alumni--who are supposed to turn off the spigots and watch Harvard dry up if there is a change in admissions policy that puts women in a more equal light--place much stock in these antiquated arguments.

Interviews with over 25 of Harvard's most dedicated and successful fund raisers--involved in raising money for the endowment, the Harvard Fund and annual class solicitations--indicate that though many of Harvard's generous patrons may not like decisions made by the administration, even a drastic cutback in men and increase in women would not have more than a very short term effect on giving patterns in general. What's more the facts and statistics available for recent years tend to disprove assertions that women cannot be counted on to cough up large amounts of money to their alma mater.

Comparing average alumni donations, then, between Harvard and Radcliffe can be very misleading for many reasons. There are large differences in the methods Harvard and Radcliffe use in totalling contributions. For instance, Harvard includes bequests in its alumni totals while Radcliffe adds them in separately. And a contribution from an alumni/parent may be logged both under alumni and parental categories, but it cannot be added twice in the final total. Radcliffe in the past also has not added in contributions coming through the various club programs. But, taken with a grain of salt, a comparison between Harvard and Radcliffe alumni donations and those at other men's, women's and coed colleges throughout the country can offer some interesting insights into current giving trends among both sexes and alumni in general.

In 1972-73 Harvard had more alumni donors, received more in alumni gifts to its annual fund and received more in total alumni gifts than any other public or private educational institution in the country. Harvard's alumni donation network is vast and geared for maximum impact. Needless to say, it is highly successful. Radcliffe, on the other hand, has a much more informal and low-key system for soliciting donations from alumnae. In addition, Radcliffe fund-raisers must overcome the ambiguities alumnae see in its current status as a separate institution without a faculty of its own and having little control over the day to day influences on iis students (administration of housing and dining facilities, for instance). Despite these difficulties, Radcliffe alumnae have been among the most generous of private women's colleges. And traditionally, although the average gift from Radcliffe alumnae is considerably smaller than that of Harvard's, Radcliffe receives a higher percentage of participation than Harvard. In fact, women's colleges in general receive higher percentages of alumni participation than men's colleges.

In 1973, about 24 per cent of the Harvard alumni solicited gave an average of $170.14 to the Harvard College annual fund. Radcliffe received an average donation of $73.88 from 28 per cent of its alumnae. Harvard doubtless takes many potential contributions away from Radcliffe as a result of its control of educational and housing facilities and the large numbers of Harvard-Radcliffe marriages. However, Wellesley, which does not exist in the shadow of a "brother" institution and offers more for alumnae to identify with (but still has large numbers of its alumnae marrying Harvard graduates), had a higher average contribution in 1972-73 ($187.04) than Harvard and more than doubled Harvard's participation rate (56 per cent). Several other women's institutions have considerably higher participation rates and nearly as high an average donation per year as Harvard. None of the private men's colleges come close to approaching these figures. Vassar, which only recently went coed, ranks among the highest in alumni gifts to annual fund and total alumni gifts for private coed colleges--despite the fact that the relatively young male graduates have had little or no significant impact on fund raising there yet.

The more democratic appeal that women's colleges fund drives traditionally have is particularly important in light of recent financial trends. Harvard and universities throughout the country are beginning to learn a lesson in contemporary fund raising from Radcliffe and other women's colleges. Peterson, George Putnam '49, Harvard treasurer, and almost anyone else who knows the current money situation at Harvard, say that the University is going to have to concentrate on a much more universal and balanced fund raising effort in coming years if it intends to keep up current donation rates.

In addition, dollar competition among non-profit organizations is increasing rapidly as federal and corporate funds are scrimped. Both these trends--which will doubtless intensify at least through this decade--severely cut into the large donations Harvard could receive. So Harvard must learn the ropes of a broad financial appeal that Radcliffe has long relied upon.

Today no one doubts that the earning power of women is rapidly increasing and will continue to rise for many years to come. So while there is no reason to forsee significant changes in the contribution pattern of men in general, most people acknowledge that women will play an ever-increasing role in fund raising.