According to interviewed alums, rape andharassment were still ever-present threats in1970.

"In the subtext of the riots and the protests,integration was just a blip on the politicalscreen," Frank says. "Women's lib was justbeginning, and there wasn't that much change."

Still, many women remembered that their firstexposure to feminism occurred that year. AtCommencement, students passed out pamphletsreading: "Congratulations on your daughter'sgraduation. But can she type?" And a women'shistory class was offered for the first time.

"I heard the word 'sexism' for the first timein '68 and the minute I heard it, it kind of went'click.' It made a lot of sense to me," Anne V.Bastian '70 says.

Mergers and Questions

But some things didn't change quite as quickly.Whatever awkwardness was associated with makingthe residential dorms coed was slight incomparison with the controversy surrounding theother issues connected with the Harvard-Radcliffemerger.

In 1969, students and faculty debated an arrayof questions, ranging from whether Harvard wouldhave legal responsibilities for Radcliffe studentsliving in Harvard dorms to the psychologicalimpact of coed living on students.

These debates also delayed--or staved off,depending on the point of view--the merger ofHarvard and Radcliffe.

Money was another concern. Few knew whether themerger would cost the University more or less.

Radcliffe was in the midst of a $30 millioncapital campaign when negotiations for the mergerwere announced, and alumni donations droppedsharply as a direct result.

Still, Radcliffe giving had always beensignificantly lower than that of other women'scolleges like Smith and Mount Holyoke.

Crimson reporters speculated at the time thatwhile Radcliffe College had its own facilities,traditions and students, its "annexed" statusdeterred alumnae from giving and provided anotherreasoned it should merge with Harvard.

With an incorporated Harvard-Radcliffe, thereporters reasoned, women alums would give more.

But Harvard's faculty and administratorsreportedly thought that more students meant highercosts, and at a time when both Harvard andRadcliffe were feeling a financial squeeze, theprospect of merging seemed increasinglyunattractive.

Radcliffe's lesser resources were a large partof the impetus for fusing the two schools, butthey underscored the inherent inequality betweenthem.