THE May 31 appointment of Linda S. Wilson as president of Radcliffe confirmed that the college no longer deserves to be called just that--a college.

Radcliffe really has neither students nor faculty. Since ceding control of undergraduate life to Harvard in 1977, Radcliffe has increasingly shifted its focus away from the traditional collegiate concerns of curriculum, faculty affairs and student life. It has played virtually no role in decisions affecting the women's community at Harvard, focusing instead on the development of programs and fellowships for postgraduate research.

With the selection of Wilson, a non-teaching administrator who has shown little support for women's issues, Radcliffe has not only further distanced itself from the Harvard community; it has also failed to provide women students and faculty with a leader.

FOR the Radcliffe of today, a Radcliffe that is not concerned with undergraduates, the selection of Wilson as president makes perfect sense. The pride of Radcliffe is its research programs and facilities like the Bunting Institute, Murray Research Center and Schlesinger Library.

It makes perfect sense to choose Wilson, an experienced administrator and fundraiser, if Radcliffe is supposed to be simply a research institution. But shouldn't Radcliffe be called a college for some reason other than tradition and history?

Throughout the long, 16-month search process to find a successor to Matina Horner, a debate raged over whether the new president should be an experienced administrator or a feminist scholar: Should Radcliffe continue to reduce its role in the lives of women undergraduates, or is it time for a change of direction? Is it, instead, time for Radcliffe to take on the role of advocate for women's issues within the University?

The appointment of Wilson is a definite step in the same direction Radcliffe has been heading for the past 12 years.

WHILE the Radcliffe Board of Trustees was clearly interested in finding an experienced fundraiser to fill the post, it did make an effort to select an individual who could be a leader in more than one area for Radcliffe.

Indeed, two top feminist scholars were on the short list of candidates for the position--Harvard Law School Professor Martha L. Minow and Duke University Professor Anne F. Scott. But both removed themselves from the list. Another candidate, Yale University Professor Judith Rodin, turned down Radcliffe's offer. The Board of Trustees should not have been surprised. What committed academic would want to be the president of a college consisting solely of three programs?

Still, the decisions of Minow and Scott should have served as a reminder of how far Radcliffe has strayed from its role as a college. The problems the search committee faced did not reflect the state of the pool of qualified women available, but rather the state of the position the committee was seeking to fill.

So instead of a top-notch scholar, the search committee selected Wilson, a solid administrator already well-versed in the party-line rhetoric.

THOSE who pushed for the selection of a feminist scholar rather than an administrator had hoped to find a woman who would be more vocal and supportive of women faculty and students at the University. Wilson is clearly not the one for that job.

When asked earlier this month if she would use her position to try to improve Harvard's poor track record in women faculty hiring, Wilson responded, "the role of Radcliffe in terms of direct hiring decisions does not exist."

True, the Radcliffe presidency is not invested with any direct influence in faculty hiring decisions. And that lack of a defined role was one of Horner's excuses for not using her position in the faculty to visibly support women faculty members.

But as a dean in the college--a position assured the Radcliffe president in the 1977 non-merger merger agreement--and the supposed leader of the women's undergraduate community, Horner could have forged a new role for herself, and Radcliffe, within the Harvard administration. She chose not to. Wilson has already indicated plans to do the same.

"I try to be careful not to extend my reach where I'm not welcome or where it's not really part of my role because one can tend to do damage there," she told a Crimson reporter.

WILSON did not receive a faculty appointment, a situation which further weakens Radcliffe's already tenuous ties to the Harvard faculty. And Radcliffe has already demonstrated that is clearly not in touch with the women's community at Harvard.

In a year when thousands of Harvard women went to Washington, D.C. to march for women's rights, Radcliffe appointed a president afraid of the feminist "label," as Wilson has called it.

In a year when the Harvard Affirmative Action Plan showed a significant gap between tenure and tenure-track women faculty members in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and the available pool, and the Verba Report called for a stepped-up effort to recruit women scholars, Radcliffe appointed a president that believes that there is a small pool of qualified women scholars, and that this small pool is "a significant factor" in Harvard's low rate of tenure for women faculty.

In a year when Olwen Hufton, chair of the Committee on Degrees in Women's Studies, indicated a need for greater interaction between the women's studies program and Radcliffe's scholars, Radcliffe appointed a president who hasn't taught in 20 years and doesn't have strong enough credentials to earn a faculty position.

WOMEN undergraduates at Harvard still write their tuition checks to "Harvard and Radcliffe Colleges." Payroll forms still have separate boxes labeled "Harvard" and "Radcliffe" for students to indicate University affiliation. And diplomas women receive at graduation are signed by the presidents of both Harvard and Radcliffe.

But that is the extent of the association most women undergraduates have with Radcliffe--a check, a form, a signature. By appointing Wilson, the Board of Trustees is ensuring that things stay that way.

Maybe its time to stop adding the "and Radcliffe Colleges" to the tuition check. Why should undergraduates give money to something that doesn't exist?