The recently released Reports of Financial Operations for Radcliffe exhibit disturbing financial trends at the College, once again raising fundamental questions about the role Radcliffe will play in the next century. The reports show that Radcliffe has run huge deficits in the last three years, ranging from $2.2 to $3.5 million, or approximately 13 percent to a high of 20 percent of its annual income. Coupled with this figure is the equally disquieting revelation that over the same period, Radcliffe's administrative costs have ballooned, and this while educational expenditures have risen at a much slower rate. Whether the figures bespeak a concerted vision of Radcliffe's place within the University or merely shoddy bookkeeping, they display spending priorities that are out of line with the best interests of students.

While Radcliffe has tried to portray its large deficits as part of a sound financial strategy, they are unquestionably a cause for concern. The debt accumulated over the last three years amounts to nearly 38 percent of its 1995 operating budget, and more than 43 percent of its 1995 income. Compare that to Harvard, whose accumulated debt over the same period is less than three percent of its 1995 income. And even Harvard's small deficits are not preferable, according to Vice President of Finance Elizabeth C. "Beppie" Huidekoper. "Academic institutions want to be at break-even or better," she explains. "You certainly don't want to be in deficit."

Radcliffe argues, however, that it is working under a deliberate strategy. It contends that the deficits stem from its ongoing capital campaign, an investment that will eliminate the debt in the coming years. But despite fairly constant spending on the campaign in the last three years, it has failed to pay off so far. Indeed, capital campaigns are never a sure thing. Regardless of the campaign's success or failure, Radcliffe has been irresponsible, plunging itself into a cumulative shortfall nearly half the size of its annual income in order to fund it. A capital campaign, at the very least, should not produce a crippling debt. One is reminded of organizations that send mass mailings in order to pay for their mass mailings.

Sadly, the image of Radcliffe as a bureaucracy that sustains itself through fund-raising is only corroborated by other figures in the report. Over the same three year period, Radcliffe increased administrative costs 67 percent while boosting educational spending by less than 22 percent. This occured despite last fall's reorganization, a move which was purported to have occured with the intention of directing more capital towards students through the elimination of a number of bureaucratic posts and vestigial services.

We continue to support Radcliffe's reorganization, but it must include another round of administrative streamlining if it is to prepare the college for a useful role in the next century. Radcliffe must accept the fact that it no longer functions as a college in any conventional sense and need not have the bureaucratic structure of one. It should respond to its diminished role not by growing its expensive institutional structure, but rather by phasing much of it out, and by expanding the offerings that students find useful. Programs which target the interests of students by providing experiences distinct from those offered at Harvard should receive the bulk of Radcliffe's funding. The mentor program, the Lyman Common Room and the externship program are prominent examples.

If Radcliffe is going to be anything more to most students than a free t-shirt at registration and an extra signature on women's diplomas, it must move beyond its recent reorganization, continuing to redefine itself in the coming years. Instead of using a bloated bureaucracy to cling to its past, it must focus on serving Harvard students in the future. Only then will it continue to play a valuable role in the University community.