Lobbying in Washington may not be the most genteel profession, but in these days of federal support for education, it's become a fact of life. No longer can women's colleges like Radcliffe--or any college for that matter--sit back and watch the government's wheels slowly grind on, crushing federal aid programs in clammy bureaucratic jaws. Many colleges, including the nations' 125 womens' institutions, have grown increasingly dependent on federal funds. And when the government begins to tug on the institutional purse strings, administrators run from their Ivy towers to catch the next shuttle to Washington.

When Harvard, or any other major research university, waits to get its point across--whether it be a bill in Congress or a regulation in front of a federal agency--it sends its skilled lobbying troops down to Capitol Hill. Harvard's office of government relations, says Robin Schmidt, vice president for government and community affairs, tries to serve as lobbyist for Radcliffe too. "In the community," Schmidt says, Radcliffe "is indivisible as far as we're concerned."

In the federal arena, however, the colleges' relationship is less clear cut. "I guess I represent only Harvard," says Parker L. Coddington, who as Harvard's director of government relations conducts a high proportion of the University's lobbying in Washington. While Coddington says that he has represented Radcliffe on some issues, particularly pertaining to federal student aid programs, there is no set pattern.

The basic feeling, as officials both in Cambridge and Washington relate, is that women's colleges have no reason to lobby by themselves. "I don't think they have any unique issues," Schmidt says, adding quickly that "if they did, we'd be happy to do something." Thomas Wolanin, staff director of the Senate Subcommittee on Post-secondary Education, says that his staff "assumes that women's colleges have no unique problems different from independent colleges or higher education as a whole."

But some Washington lobbyists sharply disagree, saying that women's colleges--mostly small four-year institutions on the eastern seaboard--are getting trampled on. "The federal run of things is complicated enough so that specific interests are being lost," says Donna L. Shavlik, associate director of the Office of Women in Higher Education of the American Council on Education. Marcia K. Sharp '68, director of the Women's College Coalition, a Washington-based amalgam of 67 single-sex institutions, agrees with Shavlik's assessment. The coalition, says Sharp, needs "to spearhead a better understanding of what the positive elements" of women's colleges are. Sharp says that her group would "like to have women's institutions consulted regularly when the government makes decisions," but for now, that just doesn't happen.

In Radcliffe Yard, President Horner takes a somewhat different view of the situation. Horner says it is very hard to compare Harvard and Radcliffe when it comes to federal influence. Horner believes that Radcliffe, because it has a comprehensive knowledge of women's issues, works from a base that is "more than just self-interest." While both institutions have a certain stature, says Horner, Harvard is a major research institution, a "very different ballgame" from Radcliffe, which "commands enormous respect for the quality of its students and the courage it has had." The contrast, as one Capitol Hill staffer says, is in the aura; "When Harvard talks, people are inclined to lend a friendly ear," he says. Wolanin differs somewhat in his assessment. "What makes the difference between two institutions is what they say," he insists, adding, "Some of the best ideas come from unprestigious and unknown universities."

Radcliffe does not have its own office of government or community affairs, nor does it have staff people who, like the people in Grays Hall, do nothing but lobby for Harvard. When Radcliffe has a point to make, officials have one of two options. As spokesmen for many of the Seven Sisters say, the best bet is to put the college president on the phone. Horner says that, given a specific issue, she doesn't hesitate to pick up the phone and call Patricia R. Harris, Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW). Contacting the political people is a particularly effective lobbying method for small colleges. Helen Karnovsky, special assistant to Harris and HEW's liaisons with women's colleges, says. "If they have a personal relationship, that helps," Karnovsky adds. While federal officials do not normally think of women's colleges as lobbyists, "President Horner is listened to as an individual," Joy Simonson, director of the National Advisory Council on women's Education, says. In essence, stature opens the path to the top.

However, in most cases, Radcliffe and other women's colleges get their views known through groups of universities and colleges with established names in Washington. Burton I. Wolfman, administrative dean of Radcliffe who handles some of the college's federal contacts, says that Radcliffe, like many small colleges, goes through consortia such as the American Council on Education. Radcliffe also lets the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities do some of its work, and Horner, at one time or another, has sat on the boards of similar groups.

Recently, however, the Women's College Coalition (WCC) has emerged as the "only unified voice" for women's colleges. The WCC, founded in 1972 as a project of the Association of American Colleges, functions both as an information source and an advocate for single-sex education, director Sharp explains. In the past year, however, its scope has expanded past what one Washington lobbyist labels "pure public relations." Last month, for example, the WCC sponsored a day-long conference in Washington which brought together a variety of HEW officials and women's college presidents, including Horner. Following an opening address from Harris, the group discussed a variety of policy and program options in women's higher education. "Women's colleges have never had that kind of opportunity," Sharp says. "Harris has a very special interest in women's colleges," HEW liaison Karnovsky adds. education will only be the property of HEW for another six months," Karnovsky said she hopes that the links already established will transfer to newly-created Department of Education. While women have been given no specific department in the new agency, most believe the new agency will stress equal access and civil rights--and that President Carter's nomination of Judge Shirley Hufstedler to be the agency's secretary will help the cause.

The WCC is presently having difficulty trying "to carve out a specific legislative agenda," Sharp says. At the meeting, officials discussed a number of specific issues, including the composition of government committees which pass out federal research dollars and several specific statutes. More importantly, however, the participants raised questions of inclusion in the decision-making process. Sharp says, for example, that had it not been for "an 11th hour move," single-sex colleges might have been eliminated from Title IX, which regulates federal dollars for athletics. "When we look for ways to increase equal opportunity across the board," says the ACE's Shavlik, "single-sex institutions are often overlooked."

But despite the WCC and separate colleges' best efforts, not many people know that women's colleges are aching to be heard. Wolanin says that although the WCC talked to his office about six months ago, he has not been contacted since. Says Jean Froelicher, counsel to the House Subcommittee on Education, Arts and Humanities, "To my knowledge, the women's colleges don't have any kind of separate organizations" for lobbying.

If contacts on Capitol Hill are very weak, then those in HEW seem to be stronger. But women's colleges must join together and quickly find a niche in the new Education Department. If they don't, they may be left out in the cold. "Women's colleges are all very different," says Horner, "but they are all connected by a fundamental philosophy and belief in the talents of women." All that belief and goodwill, however, means very little in the face of hundreds of well-oiled lobbying machines. If the case for women's colleges is going to be heard, a lot of people are going to have to get their hands dirty