During Freshman Week, I was confused by the plethora of activities sponsored by Radcliffe College. The Radcliffe Convocation, the Radcliffe president's speech at the Opening Exercises, the complimentary mug from the Radcliffe Alumni Association...I knew that Radcliffe had been the sister school of Harvard back in ages past, but I wondered about the current purpose of Radcliffe, now that Harvard is a completely co-educational institution.

According to Radcliffe's brochures, its new direction and goals are: "To educate and inspire women for full participation in all areas of life; to strengthen Radcliffe's role as a major center for research on and by women; to engage women in shaping policy on important societal issues."

All of these are laudable goals. Indeed, while women now have equal access to the opportunities at Harvard, they are still subject to other forms of discrimination here and in the world at large. The programs that Radcliffe offers are quite valuable and should be continued.

But the current goals of Radcliffe are not those of a College; they are the goals of a women's interest group. While such groups are valuable and still necessary, it is misguided to treat Radcliffe today as a women's college. Harvard has changed a great deal since Radcliffe's founding in 1879, so much so that a college designed to "provide women with equal access to a Harvard education" is entirely obsolete. It is time to realize that Harvard is now a fully coeducational institution. Therefore, Harvard and Radcliffe should resolved to officially recognize Radcliffe as a women's center, which, after all, is what it has already become.

As Radcliffe faces present realities, we must not forget the continually changing roles that Radcliffe has performed throughout its long history.

At one time in Harvard's past, a separate women's college was unfortunately a necessity. Back then, Radcliffe was called the "Harvard Annex." It was founded in order to provide women with access to a Harvard education, which at that time was available only to men. To accomplish this, 44 Harvard professors were privately hired to teach the women.

Radcliffe blossomed from these modest beginnings, and over the 114 years, Radcliffe women increasingly became an integral part of Harvard University. In 1943, many Harvard classes began to admit women. In 1963, Radcliffe women were granted official Harvard degrees. And in 1971, Harvard took control of Radcliffe housing, making the entire system coeducational.

Today, close to half of the Harvard student boy is composed of women, a dramatic growth from the 27 who were enrolled in the Harvard Annex in 1879. Women sit in the same lecture halls and libraries as men, and they compete for the same offices, positions, and grants. The founders' controversial and ambitious goal, to provide women with access to a Harvard education, has been fully realized.

Radcliffe must recognize its achievement and end its insistence on college status. Of course, Radcliffe, like Harvard, possesses a rich body of history and tradition, and many students and alumni are loathe to make major changes to established institutions. Sentimental ties to Radcliffe are particularly strong among the older of Radcliffe's 26,400 alumni. It must be painful for them to imagine students calling for the end of Radcliffe College.

Now, however, the benefits accrued by the continued existence of Radcliffe College are outweighed by the difficulties it creates.

The existence of Radcliffe College creates a palpable division in the student population. As the campus moves increasingly closer to complete equality between the sexes, Radcliffe stands as a partition. If the larger goal is to make the treatment of women the same as the treatment of men in the College community, then the existence of Radcliffe College works against this goal by implying that women are still outsiders at Harvard.

One could argue that women still face sex discrimination at Harvard. This is very true, and therefore, the women's support programs that Radcliffe offers should certainly be continued, just as support centers for minorities on campus should be maintained.

But it would be ludicrous to establish a separate college for Asians, a separate college for Jews, and so on. Multiple colleges would serve to divide Harvard into homogeneous groups, rather than to build a pluralistic, diverse community.

The same logic applies to Radcliffe. Harvard has committed itself to becoming a fully coeducational institution, and any impediments to this goal must be removed. Radcliffe's programs are valuable and must be continued, but its status as a college creates an undesirable division in the Harvard community.

When women were excluded from Harvard, Radcliffe College was necessary. Ironically, its very success has led to the current state of affairs. A separate college for women at Harvard is an anachronism, a relic of the past. Harvard and Radcliffe have together built a community based upon full gender equality--a community that should remove any vestiges of separation.