"They were trying to create women's studies in the belly of the beast. Harvard thinks of itself as the keeper of the culture, and in general, it tends to be fairly conservative about what it lets into the culture," says Susan M. Reverby, professor of women's studies at Wellesley College.

Professor of Romance Languages and Comparative Literatures and Chair of the Women's Studies Committee Susan R. Suleiman says that while she agrees with Reverby's statements "to a large extent," the Faculty's ultimate support signaled the recognition that women's studies was a valid academic discipline.

"Harvard was not a leader of the pack, but at least it had the good sense to recognize what was going on," she says.

Suleiman says in the past Harvard was slow to recognize that valuable study could take place outside and between a standard system of deparments.

"In the past, there's been a kind of lack of imagination about how to define what should be taught," she says. "Within many disciplines, some of the best work is being done by people who are daring and able to combine different studies."

But seven years later after his dissent before the Faculty, Mansfield and other conservative critics reiterate their charges.

"It's not really women's studies, it's feminist studies," Mansfield says. "It's a little ladies' sewing circle. They don't like to talk to people out of their own viewpoint, even if it's other women."

A recent article in the conservative journal Peninsula shares Mansfield's concerns. "The philosophy of Women's Studies is little more than self-serving, not to the needs of women (which it actually disregards in the end), but to the feminist agenda and to its own own continued existence within the `academy.'"

Both Walsh and Schor disagreeing that the introductory courses offer a diversity of viewpoints.

"We are very open politically. To say that we represent a particular point of view doesn't understand the very nature of this concentration," Schor says.

Students also deny claims of a narrow agenda within the women's studies curriculum.

"A male friend who's a gov concentrator teases me about doing my soft women's studies stuff, learning about feminism and the party line. It's not about that. It's about looking at things from a different perspective," Mitchell says.

Camille Paglia, professor of Humanities at the University of the Arts in Philidelphia and an outspoken critic of women's studies programs, criticizes the concentration for not having a scientific base. "To theorize about sex you have to first study the foundation," she says.

Suleiman counters that "you don't have to always start with biology; you don't have to start with cell division to know that women are different than men."

Because the concentration originated from resources already available at Harvard, its direction was largely dependent on the interests of professors already at Harvard, according to Suleiman.